You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

James_Miller comments on How would you take over Rome? - Less Wrong Discussion

25 Post author: Yvain 14 March 2012 04:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (200)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: James_Miller 14 March 2012 06:27:45PM 7 points [-]

This also means that there was intense competition among religions which would reduce the chance that any one religion could gain adherents.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 March 2012 12:47:56AM 4 points [-]

On the other hand, a printing press is an enormous advantage for spreading memes.

Comment author: gwern 14 March 2012 06:40:11PM 2 points [-]

That's right, and that's also probably why Christianity grew extremely slowly early on. (I wouldn't go the religion route myself unless I had technological miracles to employ.)

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 15 March 2012 02:00:12AM 3 points [-]

I wonder why Christianity won so big in the end then, given that it wasn't displaying early memetic virulence.

Comment author: gwern 15 March 2012 02:08:49AM 4 points [-]

People have speculated about that for a long time. Relevant factors seem to be the decay of the Roman military discrediting Christianity's major rival, Mithraism, lack of vitality in the pagan faiths such as diminished oracular activity discrediting them ('the silence of the oracles'), and good political luck.