Now I will draw a parallel, you will surely like:
Roman Empire saw the antiquated thinking the common folk possessed (paganism), as obsolete and backward, because it brought no progress, and no unity necessary to achieve one European Empire, one European Nation, one European Homeland (in their case Roman). It was irrelevant which person, where came with the idea of that new philosophical thought that there is only one God which is benevolent, such as it is today irrelevant where the rational school of thought emerged (it might have come from Eskimo land, who the hell cares). What was relevant, that the most citizens of the European Empire were supporters of that new philosophy (just as today the most are supporters of the rational philoshopy), and that it is wise to shift from an obsolete school of thought to a new one, more unifying and progressive. Hence the new immigrants e.g. Slavs were still antiquated and foreign in their ideology, nationalist, conservative and backward one could say today, and making them citizens of the European Empire needed them to embrace the common European tradition and culture that ruled, and not some by their standards, non-compatible non-European pagan crap from the steppe. Whether we liked it or not. Why did we do it?
[li]Because of the same reason why some of our European Imperialist members say, because it was antiquated and we had to move one. One European Empire, one European Homeland, one European Nation.[/li]
Let's say you're right. Does it take much longer for christianity to unite Europe? I don't see the slightest indication of it. Do you?
Oh, right: a progressive and benevolent ideology destroys everything in its path. And I don't mean ONLY Europe. Ask the Inkas.