Beren wrote:You can thank Rome for your whole lifestyle actually, but I'm sure you'd live in a pre-Roman Celtic village rather than today's Montreal as if Romanisation has never happened.
We can thank Rome for our lifestyle?
bring (something, especially a region or people) under Roman influence or authority:
"though not himself a Roman, he was fully Romanized, spoke Latin, and lived in a Roman-style villa"
make Roman Catholic in character:
"he has Romanized the services of his church"
put (text) into the Roman alphabet or into roman type:
I usually see the 3rd one. The Roman alphabet with variation is widespread.
Scotland was at odds with Rome. Its famously walled off by Hadrian's Wall. Live there or don't live there, people tend to know other civilizing influences.
The Latins were around for the start of christianity to leave literal Latin Churches in their provinces. Theres the matter of the literal Latin Church at the end of the West Roman Empire.
It did crumble didn't it? There are no working aqueducts, colosseums later on, just the church. I'd be lost to say what Rome would mean to most people otherwise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ageshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
Christianity was a major unifying factor between Eastern and Western Europe before the Arab conquests, but the conquest of North Africa sundered maritime connections between those areas. Increasingly, the Byzantine Church differed in language, practices, and liturgy from the Western Church. The Eastern Church used Greek instead of the Western Latin. Theological and political differences emerged, and by the early and middle 8th century issues such as iconoclasm, clerical marriage, and state control of the Church had widened to the extent that the cultural and religious differences were greater than the similarities. The formal break, known as the East–West Schism, came in 1054, when the papacy and the patriarchy of Constantinople clashed over papal supremacy and excommunicated each other, which led to the division of Christianity into two Churches—the Western branch became the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branch the Eastern Orthodox Church.
How ridiculous is two Churches in the first place? Now how confusing is the rest of the discussion in the Church(s).
Christianity as an organization, consider the King of Israel was accused of standing against the Emperor. If Jesus Christ were King of Israel after the older line of King David and the Israelites then that's too much for the Roman Governors that are decided in Rome for the provinces like Pontius Pilate the Roman Governor for Jerusalem. Feudalism and Kings of Europe develop as an association of Kings.
Jesus Christ was a basis of law and all learning. I saw a U.S. Grant quote about not promoting any Sectarian schools.
The greatest innovations come from the desertion of Greek Constantinople called a Renaissance means "Rebirth" possibly "renewed" with the Turkish Muslim capture Greeks travel around, perhaps Presbyters.
Several posts here are falsely claiming the Roman Emperor's pet idea of having a Church everyone believes in, while most people know about the christian slaves in Rome, the rumors against Christians the persecutions, the burning of Rome by Nero blamed on Christians, and the acceptance of those worshippers being 300/400.