Much of "civilisation" has been about limiting, channeling, repressing or sublimating violence.
The ancient shift from personal revenge to institutional justice and punishment, and from collective to individual responsibility (as attested in the Bible and many other cultures) was a decisive step. In modern times (at least in Europe) the emphasis shifted from punishment to correction and rehabilitation. We now track down violence where it was admitted a few decades ago (domestic or professional abuse, etc.).
In religion the warrior gods leading their peoples in war -- such as the old Yhwh -- gave way to a God who was, in principle, adverse to violence. Who either took away violence from man's hands as the only legitimate user of violence (as in the Final Judgement / Hell scenarii), or took violence symbolically upon himself (as in the Christian theologies of the cross), or even was completely foreign to the world of violence (as in Gnosticism).
Yet, it seems to me that violence was more transformed or displaced than overcome. The wars of civilised nations, Christian or otherwise, proved to be far more destructive than "primitive" tribal vendetta. Violent crime does not recede, with or without capital punishment. And now we see the unexpected comeback of religious violence. In personal and social relationships, repressed violence also resurges in disguised, but no less violent ways.
Have we been missing the right strategy? Or could there be something wrong with our very ideal of overcoming violence?