 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / January 2006Challenge an economical vibrant Roman Empire
Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when Roman emperors had money and assembled troops, their army was effective enough. The problem was there were not enough Roman soldiers and the reason was there was not enough money to pay for the number of soldiers required. The state was bankrupting its economic system to pay for its military. The challenge is to make the Roman Empire financially sound enough to keep the state going though the fifth century.  SignatureIt takes a lot of study to figure out how Euclid's geometry is based on *self-evident* truths. Observations of Bernard - No 90 > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The challenge is to make the Roman Empire financially sound enough to > keep the state going though the fifth century. Lateen rigging and regular postal system, private or Imperial. > > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > > suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The challenge is to make the Roman Empire financially sound enough to > > keep the state going though the fifth century. > Lateen rigging and regular postal system, private or Imperial. The Romans, of course, had Lateen Rigging. "We now have irrefutable proof that at least three types of fore-and aft rig were known in Roman times- the spirit-sail and two varieties of the lateen sail" (K.D. White, Greek and Roman Technology) > > > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > > > suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > aft rig were known in Roman times- the spirit-sail and two varieties of > the lateen sail" (K.D. White, Greek and Roman Technology) But apparently only used it for small craft. At what period exactly the squaresail of the Egyptian and classical seamen began to give way to the lateen, now almost universal for small craft in the Mediterranean, is not clear, but it seems to have directly followed the Mohammedan incursions. That the lateen was generally adopted in square-rigged ships during the fifteenth century, for the mizen sail or driver, on account probably of its superior set for holding the wind in staying, we find from several drawings of that period, and it became definitely the rig of the Venetian galleys of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in place of the classical squaresail which had been retained until that period, and of which we have records in the galleys as late as the fourteenth century, disposed as in the time of Pliny, on fore, main, and mizen masts. Around the second century CE, a new type of sail became widely used in the Mediterranean. This was the triangular lateen sail, which could catch the wind on either side of its surface, thereby allowing a vessel to sail closer into the wind. Sailors no longer had to depend solely on the wind blowing in the desired direction when they wanted to undertake a voyage. The Byzantines may have adopted the lateen sail from the Arabs, and then passed it on to other Europeans. Around this time, the Byzantines, along with other Mediterranean shipbuilders, introduced a new form of hull construction. Instead of assembling the planked and mortised hull first and inserting a ribbed skeleton into this shell, they began constructing the skeleton (ribs and keel) first and then built the planked hull around this interior structure. and While lateen rigs had been known to the Romans, Arabs perfected them and mated them with slender hulls that exploited their remarkable sailing abilities to the fullest. North Africans raided the coasts of Southern Europe in such ships and overran Sicily which they colononized. In later centuries these corsairs who came to be known as Barbary pirates sailed as far as Iceland. >> > > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons >> > > suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >catch the wind on either side of its surface, thereby allowing a vessel >to sail closer into the wind. That's not strictly correct. If the yard carrying the sail was slung on the downwind side of the mast the sail would billow away from the mast and form a good aerofoil. Under these conditions the vessel could sail relatively close to the wind. If the vessel then tacked (turned through the wind to take the wind on the other side of the sail) the sail would be draped around the mast. Not only would it be prone to chafe against the mast in this situation but it did not make such a good aerofoil and would not sail so close to the wind. The only satisfactory answer was to lower the sail and boom, and transfer them to the other side of the mast. The length of the triangular sail made this a clumsy operation. The lateen sail used on the medieaval square riggers made use of a shorter yard which could be swung back into a vertical position while remaining hoisted, to enable the yard to be transferred to the other side of the mast. This made them much more easily handled. >Sailors no longer had to depend solely on >the wind blowing in the desired direction when they wanted to undertake >a voyage. That squaresails were so dependent is a myth. Square sails can sail over nearly as wide a range as lateen rigs. The operative word is 'nearly'. >The Byzantines may have adopted the lateen sail from the >Arabs, and then passed it on to other Europeans. Around this time, the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >colononized. In later centuries these corsairs who came to be known as >Barbary pirates sailed as far as Iceland. Eric Stevens > >> > > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > >> > > suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > Eric Stevens I think of the Arab improvements to the lateen rig which led to the 15th-16th century ships with jibs as similar to the Incan familiarity with the wheel. They used them on toys but apparently nothing else. > But apparently only used it for small craft. And yet your own citation states that: > Around the second century CE, a new type of sail became widely used in > the Mediterranean. This was the triangular lateen sail, which could [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they began constructing the skeleton (ribs and keel) first and then > built the planked hull around this interior structure. You also don't tell us where any of this is from, so I don't know how accurate it is. >> But apparently only used it for small craft. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >You also don't tell us where any of this is from, so I don't know how >accurate it is. Google will tell you http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/smyth/mast_n_sail_08.html An informed source but not necessarily very well. Eric Stevens > > > Lateen rigging and regular postal system, private or Imperial. > > The Romans, of course, had Lateen Rigging. But didn't really need it, as they pretty much gave up on keeping the Med a Roman body of water after the 2nd Century. They had the blinders on, and couldn't imagine their dominance being threatened with Cathage and Egyptians no longer a threat, and let the Fleets rot, letting the Eastern half of the Empire worry about Naval problems. So were in for a rude shock as the Vandals&Alans started overtaking Spain, N.Africa and finally Sicily and Corsica, starting in the 4thC from the Roman allied Visigoths Who would have though a bunch of Barbarians, tossed out of nowdays Poland by the Huns, would fight their way thru a pile of Visigoths and Franks, to take over part of Spain& N.Africa, and decide to become a Naval Power that would later destroy a large Byzantine fleet sent to destroy them in 468, after they had sacked and raided Roman territory at will for almost 50 years? But then the Vandals didn't forsee the asswhuppin that Byzantines had instore for them in another 60 years, but that was a little too late to help the Romans by about a hundred years. So I don't think the Romans building tri masted, lateened sailed Galleasses(mostly doable with Roman tech, replacing the cannon platforms with catapults) as the Romans had no will to keep a decent Navy funded after the 2nd century. All better ships would do would is rot the same way their Quadrememes did. ** mike ** > > > > Lateen rigging and regular postal system, private or Imperial. > > > > The Romans, of course, had Lateen Rigging. > > But didn't really need it, as they pretty much gave up > on keeping the Med a Roman body of water after the 2nd Century. Who else would rule the Mediterranean? I don't get it. The Romans owned all the land along its shored. Lateens would help, according to his argument, by improving sailing technology and thus helping trade. > Who else would rule the Mediterranean? I don't get it. The Romans owned > all the land along its shored. > > Lateens would help, according to his argument, by improving sailing > technology and thus helping trade. Trade was good with the existing squaresail and oarsmen. Now a Roman Ketch or Schooner Rig would help trade, needing fewer crewman for a ship of given size. They were masters of the Mediterranean, yet did not forsee the need to keep their Navy well funded to control piracy. Like I posted, the Vandals came out of nowhere from a non-seafaring tradition, yet in the 400s controlled the seas of the western Med. The Romans were unable to recreate a fleet to combat this, and did have a better Naval Tradition by this point that a naval threat from anyone should not have been a threat-- But the Romans were looking Landward just as much as the Chinese did later, but the Chinese didn't have Rich colonies and established traderoutes that the Romans had, and could afford to ignore their Navy. The Romans should not have ignored this, but spent money elsewhere. ** mike ** > Like I posted, the Vandals came out of nowhere from a non-seafaring > tradition, yet in the 400s controlled the seas of the western Med. I feel it's worth pointing out, now that I have free time, that the Romans were well aware of how important control of the sea was; it was a crime punishable by death to teach the barbarians to build ships. The Romans also launched major expeditions against the Vandals in 441 and 468 with eastern assistance, and an independent western venture in 460. > > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > > suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lateen rigging and regular postal system, private or Imperial. Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient container for liquids, the bag or sack for grain and just stacking the other stuff as packing around the amphoras. > Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the > barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient > container for liquids, the bag or sack for grain and just stacking the > other stuff as packing around the amphoras. Barrels already existed, and were used in the northern parts of the Roman Empire. > > Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the > > barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Barrels already existed, and were used in the northern parts of the > Roman Empire. But like the lateen sail they didn't make use of barrels, which would have had several consequences not obvious at the start: better seal on the stopper, the wood imparts both a flavor and a mellowing to the wine (I don't know what it would do for olive oil and fish sauce) and has a use beyond the first one. >> > Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the >> > barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >(I don't know what it would do for olive oil and fish sauce) and has a >use beyond the first one. There is evidence that amphorae were re-used, too. It is believed that this is how retsina got started. Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au > >> > Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the > >> > barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au I have at least archaeological report (http://ina.tamu.edu/tektasburnu/excavation.html) that says they found pine resin in amphoras, implying it was being shipped to flavor wine on the spot. The aside on this is the pine resin was used to seal the stopper on wine amphoras and imparted a flavor to the stored wine. Like some moonshine the imperfection is the sign of the superior product. and "Going back in history, retsina originated from the use of resin to seal an amphora (a large clay pitcher used to transport liquids). Not only did the resin produce a thin film on the surface of the wine, thus reducing oxidation, but also masked any faults found in the wine. An appellation by tradition wine popular amongst the older traditional population in Greece, Retsina has incurred a negative effect on foreigners opinion of Greek wine. This is due to the multitude of producers, especially household ones, that mask the lesser quality wines' faults by adding resin. An exception to this norm is the Retsina produced by Kourtakis who has exported his label to many countries over the years." http://www.greekwine.gr/frames/regions/central/ >> >But like the lateen sail they didn't make use of barrels, which would >> >have had several consequences not obvious at the start: better seal on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >stopper on wine amphoras and imparted a flavor to the stored wine. Like >some moonshine the imperfection is the sign of the superior product. Indeed, I have seen an article (cited in this group long ago and, if my memory is not faulty, relating to a shipwreck site also, but, I vaguely recall, off the Israeli coast) that indicates that one possibility is that pine (and other) resins *may* have been used to make amphorae more airtight for shipping and then, when the amphorae were re-used, the resin mixed with the wine. The authors stressed that there was no way of being certain whether it was a chicken or egg thing and were not definitive, however Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au > > > Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the > > > barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (I don't know what it would do for olive oil and fish sauce) and has a > use beyond the first one. Umm. Except they _did_ make use of lateen sails and barrels; check out "Greek and Roman Technology", by K.D. White. They didn't use them as often as amphorae; that doesn't mean it's inferior. > > > > Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the > > > > barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Greek and Roman Technology", by K.D. White. They didn't use them as > often as amphorae; that doesn't mean it's inferior. Yes they were, the barrel was more efficient but the Romans had used amphoras for so long they couldn't handle the larger barrel. For example, Roman commerce was aware of the use of barrels by the Gauls for a long time, but they never integrated this technology, using instead the more fragile and small amphora. Barrels were eventually used in parts of the empire that had cheap and abundant wood to make them and the wider town and city alleys needed to make them efficient. By the time the knowledge on barrel-making crept into the empire, most of the older city roads and such things as warehouse entrances had been built up to handle the much smaller amphora. There simply was no physical room in the older urban areas to let the larger and unproven barrels through. There was usually enough trained slave labor around to carry each small amphora by hand, through the labyrinth of alleys, small doors, and stairs. The lateen sail was used on small harbor boats, not long distance sailers, small boats that had to manuever in and out of harbor traffic and where the sail was small enough for one man to lift it over the mast to change direction.. Lionel Casson is the only author who attempts to illustrate the use of either the lateen or sprit rig and all of his examples are very small harbor craft. The lateen is a 'later' addition to the suit of sails for Med ships. > For example, Roman commerce was aware of the use of barrels by the > Gauls for a long time, but they never integrated this technology, using [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > carry each small amphora by hand, through the labyrinth of alleys, > small doors, and stairs. Umm. So, what you're saying is, that barrels were usedin the parts of the empire where they were cheap to make. I'm very surprised that barrels could not fit through roman doors; who discusses this? > The lateen sail was used on small harbor boats, not long distance > sailers, small boats that had to manuever in and out of harbor traffic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all of his examples are very small harbor craft. The lateen is a > 'later' addition to the suit of sails for Med ships. I'm curious; does he explain why it was used only on small craft, since scaling it up wouldn't be difficult? >> For example, Roman commerce was aware of the use of barrels by the >> Gauls for a long time, but they never integrated this technology, using [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm very surprised that barrels could not fit through roman doors; who > discusses this? Barrels came in many sizes. Both kinds of containers had their own advantages. Barrels require good wood which was in short supply in the med for a long time. I'm not sure which was the most reusable. >> The lateen sail was used on small harbor boats, not long distance >> sailers, small boats that had to manuever in and out of harbor traffic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm curious; does he explain why it was used only on small craft, since > scaling it up wouldn't be difficult? > Extra probable aid to commerce, someone invents either the box or the > barrel. The standard for freight was amphora, a heavy inefficient > container for liquids, the bag or sack for grain and just stacking the > other stuff as packing around the amphoras. Barrels already existed, and were used in the northern parts of the Roman Empire. >Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons >suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when >Roman emperors had money and assembled troops, their army was effective >enough. The problem was there were not enough Roman soldiers and... ...too many Emperors... > ... the >reason was there was not enough money to pay for the number of soldiers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The challenge is to make the Roman Empire financially sound enough to >keep the state going though the fifth century. Eric Stevens > >Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > >suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when > >Roman emperors had money and assembled troops, their army was effective > >enough. The problem was there were not enough Roman soldiers and... > > ...too many Emperors... True, but the fall of Western Roman Empire started long before 5th century escaleted after 266 AD and started with 'too many Emperors' among them one who was half-Goth. Inger E > > ... the > >reason was there was not enough money to pay for the number of soldiers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Eric Stevens > > >Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > > >suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > escaleted after 266 AD and started with 'too many Emperors' among them one > who was half-Goth. Rome was obviously in big trouble after the disasters of the late 200s. But I suspect much of it was economic. To a large extend what the Romans Empire did was drop slowly the uneconomical bits eg Britain and slowly leave themselves with the parts that were economically sound. Its almost as if the dropped the Western part to save the Eastern. SignatureIt takes a lot of study to figure out how Euclid's geometry is based on *self-evident* truths. Observations of Bernard - No 90 > > > >Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > > > >suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Its almost as if the dropped the Western part to save the Eastern. No, I do not think it was quite obvious. The Western Rome fell in 5th century through the downward spiral of military defeats leading to looting enemies, shrinking tax base, inability to raise more armies and maintain the surviving ones leading to the armies withering away or suffering more defeats. Rome had also suffered a crisis in mid-3rd century. The Eastern Rome suffered a crisis in late 4th and early 5th century. Both 3rd century Roman Empire and 5th century Eastern Empire could stop the downward spiral do a circle at a lower level and to an upward spiral of victories leading to safety and economic recovery leading to more taxes collected, armies recruited and new victories. Rome after Constantine was definitely stronger wealthier and safer than Rome of Gallienus, if arguably less so than Rome of Alexander Severus. Likewise comparing the Eastern Empire of Justinian with that of early 5th century vs. mid-4th century. It seems that a relatively small butterfly might lead to Rome falling in late 3rd century, or the Eastern Empire going down with the Western one in 5th century, or the Western Empire recovering in the 5th century along with the Eastern Empire. > > > > >Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > > > > >suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > inability to raise more armies and maintain the surviving ones leading > to the armies withering away or suffering more defeats. I tend to agree with this plus bad leadership. > Rome had also suffered a crisis in mid-3rd century. The Eastern Rome > suffered a crisis in late 4th and early 5th century. Okay. > Both 3rd century Roman Empire and 5th century Eastern Empire could stop > the downward spiral do a circle at a lower level How do you propose to do that? > and to an upward > spiral of victories leading to safety and economic recovery leading to > more taxes collected, armies recruited and new victories. Yet even the regions that were safe, were not collecting as much money for Rome! > Rome after > Constantine was definitely stronger wealthier and safer than Rome of > Gallienus, if arguably less so than Rome of Alexander Severus. Likewise > comparing the Eastern Empire of Justinian with that of early 5th > century vs. mid-4th century. How so? > It seems that a relatively small butterfly might lead to Rome falling > in late 3rd century, or the Eastern Empire going down with the Western > one in 5th century, or the Western Empire recovering in the 5th century > along with the Eastern Empire. Agreed. SignatureIt would be much cheaper if my wife could learn to appreciate plastic flowers. Observations of Bernard - No 91 > > The Western Rome fell in 5th century through the downward spiral of > > military defeats leading to looting enemies, shrinking tax base, > > inability to raise more armies and maintain the surviving ones leading > > to the armies withering away or suffering more defeats. > > I tend to agree with this plus bad leadership. Of course, even with this, it's not clear to me that its defeat was ineveitable. Had they held the line against the Goths in 411, or prevented the vandals from taking africa, they might have had the resources to recover. > > Both 3rd century Roman Empire and 5th century Eastern Empire could stop > > the downward spiral do a circle at a lower level > > How do you propose to do that? You know, there'rs a fair amount of recent evidence which argues that the economy was doing as well as ever, if not better than ever, by the 4th century. Rural construction, trade, etc. The decline of cities reflected the fact that the elite no longer needed to patronise them to gain power, in this theory, and nothing more. > > > The Western Rome fell in 5th century through the downward spiral of > > > military defeats leading to looting enemies, shrinking tax base, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, even with this, it's not clear to me that its defeat was > ineveitable. Had they held the line against the Goths in 411, or Possibly. > prevented the vandals from taking africa, they might have had the > resources to recover. That is probably what killed the Western half. Maybe bad leadership by the vandals might have helped. > > > Both 3rd century Roman Empire and 5th century Eastern Empire could stop > > > the downward spiral do a circle at a lower level [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > needed to patronise them to gain power, in this theory, and nothing > more. Well if this is true, then the big problem was that the goverment was not getting enough tax revenue to to pay for troops. At the end the Westren Rome Empire lacked troops, so the borders were undefended as the barbarians advanced. > > You know, there'rs a fair amount of recent evidence which argues that > > the economy was doing as well as ever, if not better than ever, by the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Westren Rome Empire lacked troops, so the borders were undefended as > the barbarians advanced. The borders weren't undefended; thousands of the barbarians died. The borders simply weren't set up to handle incursions by hundreds of thousands of people. > > > You know, there'rs a fair amount of recent evidence which argues that > > > the economy was doing as well as ever, if not better than ever, by the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > borders simply weren't set up to handle incursions by hundreds of > thousands of people. The invaders were not that large in numbers compared to the past. But there is definitely a lack of Roman troops to face them by the fifth century Britain were abandoned as Rome could no longer spare the troops. In other places like in the Rhine and Danube frontiers had so few troops that the Germanic tribes quickly broke through the poorly defended frontiers and overrun most of the Roman Empire's western provinces. >The invaders were not that large in numbers compared to the past. But >there is definitely a lack of Roman troops to face them by the fifth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >defended frontiers and overrun most of the Roman Empire's western >provinces. Depopulation may have had something to do with this. A tangled web of causes. But the land did not support as many people as it had done when the Romans set up their frontier system. The population peak was circa 200 AD, and by 500 AD it was down by something like half. Signatureciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ > >The invaders were not that large in numbers compared to the past. But > >there is definitely a lack of Roman troops to face them by the fifth [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the Romans set up their frontier system. The population peak was circa > 200 AD, and by 500 AD it was down by something like half. Numbers are very uncertain to say the least but 200 CE was actually a period when Rome population was extremely low. The plagues and war of 160 to 170's CE had really hurt. Possibly from 65 million to about 40 million in total. But its clear that Roman Empires population had grown back by 450 CE with an extimated population of about 55 million people. What is probably more important is that the Barbarian areas had grown rapidly in population and economy! > -- > ciao, > Bruce > > drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ >> >The invaders were not that large in numbers compared to the past. But >> >there is definitely a lack of Roman troops to face them by the fifth [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >What is probably more important is that the Barbarian areas had grown >rapidly in population and economy! I guess I have to ask for your source... mine is the book by Colin McEvedy et al circa 1980 which had the then best compiled data upto 1975. It clearly shows the maximum in the 2nd Cent AD. Atlas of World Population History (Penguin Reference Books) by Colin McEvedy, Richard Jones Signatureciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ > >> >The invaders were not that large in numbers compared to the past. But > >> >there is definitely a lack of Roman troops to face them by the fifth [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Atlas of World Population History (Penguin Reference Books) > by Colin McEvedy, Richard Jones You might want to read the following http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php Also check on the Antonine plague. The plague destroyed as much as one-third of the population in some areas, and decimated the Roman army. R.J. and M.L. Littman, "Galen and the Antonine Plague," American Journal of Philology 94 (1973) 254-55. > -- > ciao, > Bruce > > drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ >> I guess I have to ask for your source... mine is the book by Colin >> McEvedy et al circa 1980 which had the then best compiled data upto [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You might want to read the following >http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php I did. Unfortunately with that site it isn't well documented. McEvedy is particularly diligent with citations to primary sources. The UNRV site gives one for the BC times but not for the AD times. >Also check on the Antonine plague. The plague destroyed as much as >one-third of the population in some areas, and decimated the Roman >army. > >R.J. and M.L. Littman, "Galen and the Antonine Plague," American >Journal of Philology 94 (1973) 254-55. http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Smith.html Your second sentence is contained there and the reference it cites is the same as yours. It also notes the followup plagues which continued to beat everyone down: ``Another plague occurred during the reigns of Decius (249-251 A.D.) and Gallus (251-253 A.D.). This pestilence broke out in Egypt in 251, and from there infected the entire empire. Its mortality rate severely depleted the ranks of the army, and caused massive labor shortages. The plague was still raging in 270, when it caused the death of the emperor Claudius Gothicus (268-270).'' So basically the plague series starts in the latter third of the 2nd Cent and continues until the end of the 3rd, with the peak population in the period 160-170 AD, consistent with what I noted (circa 200 AD implies 50 yr error bars *gg*). Then comes the Justinian plague in the 6th Cent, but in between there is lots of environmental degradation in the Med area. So that's what I had in mind... the peak near 200 AD and long decline after, with recovery not until long after, perhaps not until well after the Justinian plague. Signatureciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ > So basically the plague series starts in the latter third of the 2nd > Cent and continues until the end of the 3rd, with the peak population [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in mind... the peak near 200 AD and long decline after, with recovery > not until long after, perhaps not until well after the Justinian plague. Note we are so unsure of the figures and they are at best very imprecise. Anyway it appears at the fall say 450 CE the Roman population was growing slowly and was higher then early. The big question here is what were the barbarian figures for this period! Archaeological evidence does suggest that there population was much bigger then we thought. > Note we are so unsure of the figures and they are at best very > imprecise. Anyway it appears at the fall say 450 CE the Roman > population was growing slowly and was higher then early. The big > question here is what were the barbarian figures for this period! > Archaeological evidence does suggest that there population was much > bigger then we thought. That's of course in contradiction to the yields the land could produce with that era's agricultural technology, not to mention it contradicts Atlas of World Population History- so I disagree w/ your contention that by 450 CE the Roman pop was growing. And that archeological evidence could merely mean that the Romans had traded and looted lots of manufactures from elsewhere. > That's of course in contradiction to the yields the land could produce > with that era's agricultural technology, What do you mean? At its height, Roman Britain had a population that wouldn't be seen again for over a thousand years. > And that archeological evidence could merely mean that the Romans had > traded and looted lots of manufactures from elsewhere. So, your argument is that instead of being popoulous, 5th century Romans were skilled at war and prosperous. Hmm. I fail to see why this doesn't indicate a vibrant economy. > Atlas of World Population History (Penguin Reference Books) > by Colin McEvedy, Richard Jones Ah, my beloved bible. Out of print with no adequete substitute, I wandered used book stores for years looking for a copy. Finally found that there are plenty for sale online. I bought two. >> Atlas of World Population History (Penguin Reference Books) >> by Colin McEvedy, Richard Jones [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >used book stores for years looking for a copy. Finally found that >there are plenty for sale online. I bought two. A truly massive effort, and so well documented. And all in one place. I got mine in the early 80s but I don't know where it is now. Signatureciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ > > > Well if this is true, then the big problem was that the goverment was > > > not getting enough tax revenue to to pay for troops. At the end the > > > Westren Rome Empire lacked troops, so the borders were undefended as > > > the barbarians advanced. > The invaders were not that large in numbers compared to the past. What previous invasions had the Romans dealing with 100,000 people moving across their borders while being attacked simultaneously on other fronts, as occurred in the early 5th century? > But > there is definitely a lack of Roman troops to face them by the fifth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > defended frontiers and overrun most of the Roman Empire's western > provinces. What happened in britain is more complicated than that; I'll go into it later, since I'm not home right now. > > > > Well if this is true, then the big problem was that the goverment was > > > > not getting enough tax revenue to to pay for troops. At the end the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > moving across their borders while being attacked simultaneously on > other fronts, as occurred in the early 5th century? Rome went though many periods of intensive military conflict on mnay borders and the barbarian numbers for the Helvetii would be well over your 100,000 > > But > > there is definitely a lack of Roman troops to face them by the fifth [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What happened in britain is more complicated than that; I'll go into it > later, since I'm not home right now. , as occurred in the early 5th century? > Rome went though many periods of intensive military conflict on mnay > borders and the barbarian numbers for the Helvetii would be well > over your 100,000 This seems rather hard to believe, given that the 5th century invasions involved Goths, Vandals, and the suevi at once. An analogy might be the Cimbri, who, of course, devastated northern Italy and wiped out several Roman armies durin the Republic. > > > > > >Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > > > > > >suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > How do you propose to do that? I mean how would it happen or how it did happen? 3rd century Roman Empire and 5th century Eastern Empire definitely did in fact stop the downward spiral. Take the Rome of Gallienus - Gaul broken away, Palmyra taking Egypt and Asia, Herulians sacking Greece... And compare with the Rome after Constantine. Something actually had improved. Likewise comparing the Eastern Empire of late 4th, early 5th century with early 6th. > > and to an upward > > spiral of victories leading to safety and economic recovery leading to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How so? Run the comparison of Gallienus' Rome and Constantine's Rome > > It seems that a relatively small butterfly might lead to Rome falling > > in late 3rd century, or the Eastern Empire going down with the Western [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Observations of Bernard - No 91 > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > suggested! One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > required. The state was bankrupting its economic system to pay for its > military. I dunno; the Byzantines managed to raise an army using the themes, and that's basically feudalism writ large. You've got extensive coinage, a large trading network, the spread of urbanization. England's home to millions of people; more, it's been argued, than it would have again until Elisabeth's day. What are you missing? I wonder how much of Rome's downfall was due to its prosperity? Hmm. Take a heavily interconnected economy, and wipe out large sections of the economy with plagues. Then you have barbarian raids, and invasinos, and then wars. Which would handle that sort of thing better? An economy with a lot of specialization, or one closer to subsistence level? > Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons > suggested! One item I read said there were nearly 2000 books on the fall of Rome and each had a different reason. So you are picking a rather hard to deal with reason. > One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when > Roman emperors had money and assembled troops, their army was effective > enough. The problem was there were not enough Roman soldiers and the > reason was there was not enough money to pay for the number of soldiers > required. The state was bankrupting its economic system to pay for its > military. Not enough to pay for a military structure which maintained loyalty to Rome as opposed to some local being able to pay more OR reward more. Twenty years and get a farm isn't possible after there are no more farmlands to conquer and use as the ultimate reward. > The challenge is to make the Roman Empire financially sound enough to > keep the state going though the fifth century. Just about the only thing possible was an industrial revolution. No one after Rome established any kind of empire of interest until it was possible for a few European countries to take over other lands by virtue of general superiority in arms, negotiating skills and ruthlessness. But in every case the empire had to be looted to maintain it. Rome failed in extending citizenship beyond Rome to the entire empire leaving nothing to loot. But the empire needed money so tax collectors were contractors not civil servants with all the obvious problems. One of the suggestions for the serf system is based upon the cost of bribing the tax collector. A serf ceased to be taxable and the "baron" or whatever the title had enough money between bribes and taxes that the people overall came out ahead to the detriment of the empire. The only real solution to defending the empire was local militias but that would have lead to local government and in the best of all possible worlds a federal system like the EU a century from now. There were some tries at something like this. At one time there were four emperors at once but they were divided by "taxation centers" rather than natural federation centers. I am not per se recommending the 1789 version of the US constitution to ally the states into a nation although it is easiest to suggest it without going through time transposition of its voluntary concepts -- which have little to do with the view of the Constitution today. But if empire had been divided up among "natural" ethnic regions regardless of their tax producing potential then locals could have defended themselves and expected reinforcements because of the mutual defense reciprocity deal. Rather than the XGoths being pushed west they could have joined the empire and gotten help in defense rather than overwhelming an imperial army with more to gain by changing sides than fighting. So how is this accomplished? Local governors have to come to an agreement to do it despite Rome and impose it on Rome. How to get them to do that is the problem. One point little mentioned is the man with social conscience did not exist and does not exist outside the Christian world. And the only reason for that is Christians ban first cousin marriages. Outside that world in space and time individuals are so related to dozens of their relatives that their reaction is like we see among Christians between brothers, that legendary kind of loyalty. So we need Chrisitanity to ban 1st cousin marriages earlier and enforce it to break up the family structure which governed the empire before we can have an idea of the right of free association arise. That is not possible as it took centuries for the idea to replace the old ideas of family and fealty. So we need something to make Rome unique in the world in prohibiting 1st cousin marriages from the beginning AND stil permitting it to become an empire. It is not clear that both are possible. SignatureIt is much easier to debate the errors getting into the Iraq war than to work on ways of getting out of Iraq. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3540 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3 >> Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons >> suggested! > > One item I read said there were nearly 2000 books on the fall of Rome and > each had a different reason. So you are picking a rather hard to deal with > reason. More like a rehashing of the same main events and problems. They may all sum them up a little differently but most hit the same main points. Invasions, some very seriously bad rulers, corruption, some natural disasters, changes to the faith, etc. >> One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when Roman emperors >> had money and assembled troops, their army was effective enough. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Twenty years and get a farm isn't possible after there are no more > farmlands to conquer and use as the ultimate reward. So all the land was cleared and settled? >> The challenge is to make the Roman Empire financially sound enough to >> keep the state going though the fifth century. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of general superiority in arms, negotiating skills and ruthlessness. But > in every case the empire had to be looted to maintain it. They might have increased commerce and settlement in western Europe by the use of canals. Some sort of industrial revolution certainly would have been a huge plus. They seem to have been on the verge of it in several ways but never quite made the plunge. They did have over shot water wells. > Rome failed in extending citizenship beyond Rome to the entire empire > leaving nothing to loot. But the empire needed money so tax collectors [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > their reaction is like we see among Christians between brothers, that > legendary kind of loyalty. Yeah, just like the old noble families in Europe where they killed each other over power. You have the same problem in Rome. > So we need Chrisitanity to ban 1st cousin marriages earlier and enforce it > to break up the family structure which governed the empire before we can > have an idea of the right of free association arise. That is not possible > as it took centuries for the idea to replace the old ideas of family and > fealty. All it takes to do that is to increase the supply of acceptible spouses. Limit it and the behavior reappears fairly quickly. There are still a very few locations where every one in a village has one of three last names and everybody is very much related to everybody else. > So we need something to make Rome unique in the world in prohibiting 1st > cousin marriages from the beginning AND stil permitting it to become an > empire. It is not clear that both are possible. Oddly enough I don't know of any evidence that first cousin marriages were all that common.What is obvious is that at certain times people were moving around a lot and mating where they were at. You have fun now. >>>Why Western part of the Rome Empire fell, well there are many reasons >>>suggested! >> >>One item I read said there were nearly 2000 books on the fall of Rome and >>each had a different reason. So you are picking a rather hard to deal with >>reason. > More like a rehashing of the same main events and problems. They may all sum > them up a little differently but most hit the same main points. I said I read it. I found it rather incredible to but it conveyed they cynicism I intended. > Invasions, some very seriously bad rulers, corruption, some natural > disasters, changes to the faith, etc. It is remarkable in history to find two good rulers in a row and someone once said there was one example of three in row. >>>One point is clear that throughout the fifth century, when Roman emperors >>>had money and assembled troops, their army was effective enough. The >>>problem was there were not enough Roman soldiers and the reason was >>>there was not enough money to pay for the number of soldiers required. >>>The state was bankrupting its economic system to pay for its military. >>Not enough to pay for a military structure which maintained loyalty to >>Rome as opposed to some local being able to pay more OR reward more. >>Twenty years and get a farm isn't possible after there are no more >>farmlands to conquer and use as the ultimate reward. > So all the land was cleared and settled? No but the best land is that with the greatest return for the least effort. That was all taken from the conquered locals and owned by the several generation descendents of the original retired legionaires. Sure reward 20 years service with land no one wanted a man could have claimed and cleared 20 years earlier and younger and see what it gets you as recruits. Remember the old "good bottom land" descriptions? >>>The challenge is to make the Roman Empire financially sound enough to >>>keep the state going though the fifth century. >>Just about the only thing possible was an industrial revolution. No one >>after Rome established any kind of empire of interest until it was >>possible for a few European countries to take over other lands by virtue >>of general superiority in arms, negotiating skills and ruthlessness. But >>in every case the empire had to be looted to maintain it. > They might have increased commerce and settlement in western Europe by the > use of canals. Other than the Red Sea to Thebes canal I am not aware of any others until modern times. So inventing canals would be a good thing to do first. > Some sort of industrial revolution certainly would have been > a huge plus. They seem to have been on the verge of it in several ways but > never quite made the plunge. They did have over shot water wells. And why there was no industrial revolution is an old question. My answer is there was not enough known in all areas for synergy to do its thing. Our industrial revolution happened when already developed things were applied to new applications and they made something more than the sum of their parts. Our first us of waterwheels was to power looms instead of foot pedals. They did not have any kind of powered looms. But they did have grindstones for wheat and they only used waterwheels for grinding wheat. If had had one SPQR would have been planted on the moon in around 1069 under Nixonius Maximus. >>Rome failed in extending citizenship beyond Rome to the entire empire >>leaving nothing to loot. But the empire needed money so tax collectors [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>title had enough money between bribes and taxes that the people overall >>came out ahead to the detriment of the empire. >>The only real solution to defending the empire was local militias but that >>would have lead to local government and in the best of all possible worlds >>a federal system like the EU a century from now. There were some tries at >>something like this. At one time there were four emperors at once but they >>were divided by "taxation centers" rather than natural federation centers. >>I am not per se recommending the 1789 version of the US constitution to >>ally the states into a nation although it is easiest to suggest it without >>going through time transposition of its voluntary concepts -- which have >>little to do with the view of the Constitution today. >>But if empire had been divided up among "natural" ethnic regions >>regardless of their tax producing potential then locals could have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>overwhelming an imperial army with more to gain by changing sides than >>fighting. >>So how is this accomplished? Local governors have to come to an agreement >>to do it despite Rome and impose it on Rome. How to get them to do that is >>the problem. >>One point little mentioned is the man with social conscience did not exist >>and does not exist outside the Christian world. And the only reason for >>that is Christians ban first cousin marriages. Outside that world in space >>and time individuals are so related to dozens of their relatives that >>their reaction is like we see among Christians between brothers, that >>legendary kind of loyalty. > Yeah, just like the old noble families in Europe where they killed each > other over power. You have the same problem in Rome. If you read up on the noble families they were so intermarried that the first cousin prohibition might as well not have existed. Family feuds are as bad as any external feud. But the point is the fewer family ties the more likely (more likely only) the national character is to arise. Saladin the Kurd against the crusaders for example. Look at the actual numbers and land and the conditions of the Crusaders and anyone who could have united two or three local Muslim cities could have kicked them out if by nothing else than cutting off their food supply. But there was only Saladin on home turf. Europeans regularly produced leaders of crusades. OK, they were also kings but did they remain home and guard their kingdoms as did the Muslims before Saladin? >>So we need Chrisitanity to ban 1st cousin marriages earlier and enforce it >>to break up the family structure which governed the empire before we can >>have an idea of the right of free association arise. That is not possible >>as it took centuries for the idea to replace the old ideas of family and >>fealty. > All it takes to do that is to increase the supply of acceptible spouses. Easier said than done if intermarriages is expected. Why would they want to? > Limit it and the behavior reappears fairly quickly. > There are still a very few locations where every one in a village has one of > three last names and everybody is very much related to everybody else. 70% of Koreans are surnamed Kim. And then there is Li/Lee. And they have no problem with 1st cousin marriages. I do not explain the Johnsons. ;) >>So we need something to make Rome unique in the world in prohibiting 1st >>cousin marriages from the beginning AND stil permitting it to become an >>empire. It is not clear that both are possible. > Oddly enough I don't know of any evidence that first cousin marriages were > all that common. What is obvious is that at certain times people were moving > around a lot and mating where they were at. There is plenty of evidence from the mentions of the relationships of those who married. Of course we only have the big shots who were written about. But what we can trace between the families gives no indication of any reluctance. I am NOT saying it was the only or predominant but that it was very common and had to matter. If you do not like that kind of evidence consider the veritable christian pogram against it for several centuries until it was eliminated from consideration and considered as distasteful as brother sister marriages. SignatureIf there can be atheist Jews there can be Christian Jews just like the Nazis said. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3550 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11 Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6 > They might have increased commerce and settlement in western Europe by the > use of canals. Some sort of industrial revolution certainly would have been > a huge plus. They seem to have been on the verge of it in several ways but > never quite made the plunge. They did have over shot water wells. Hmm. Tacitus claims that "lucius vetus was making preparations to connect the rivers Rhine and Saone by means of an interconnecting canal. His intention was to have merhcandise passing through the Mediterranean, thence up the Rhone and Saone, running down from thereinto the Moselle, and so into the Rhine, and on from there into the Ocean. This would do away with all the difficulties of land transport, and there would be direct communication by water between the Mediterranean and the northern lands". It would probably have followed the route used by the Canal D l"Este in France, constructed in the 19th century. Canals were built in Britain to drain the fens, and in Holland to "prevent the rivers flooding the lands, by having their waters driven back by high tides", according to Dio [1]. In Gaul, canals were built to make Narbonne a river port, and there were plans, as I stated, to link the Rhine to the Mediterranean via canals. Then, of course, there were those plans on the part of Nero for a canal across the Isthmus of Corinth. It seems to me that the Roman problem wasn't that they didn't build canals; they did, where they were necessary. The problem, rather, seems to have been that there wasn't enough of a demand for them. >> They might have increased commerce and settlement in western Europe by >> the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Then, of course, there were those plans on the part of Nero for a canal > across the Isthmus of Corinth. If he'd used some of the money he squandered on self indulgence on the canal he might have lived longer. > It seems to me that the Roman problem wasn't that they didn't build > canals; they did, where they were necessary. The problem, rather, seems > to have been that there wasn't enough of a demand for them. Was there actually a large public demand for most of our great canals? No! What you needed was somebody with brains to see that they could increase commerce and do it even if it was costly and didn't make them a huge fortune overnight. A lack of vision and civic mindedness can be as fatal a flaw as any. > > It seems to me that the Roman problem wasn't that they didn't build > > canals; they did, where they were necessary. The problem, rather, seems > > to have been that there wasn't enough of a demand for them. > > Was there actually a large public demand for most of our great canals? No! There was enough of a demand from _somebody_ to get them financed. They can't ahve been exactly cheap. > What you needed was somebody with brains to see that they could increase > commerce and do it even if it was costly and didn't make them a huge fortune > overnight. But are you particularly likely to find on in ancient Rome? I thought the Senatorial class (like most ruling classes in most times and places) considered commerce beneath their dignity. > A lack of vision and civic mindedness can be as fatal a flaw as any. But is such vision any more likely in Imperial (or FTM Republican) Rome than in, say, Early Modern Spain? Iirc you didn't get much industrialisation or commercial enterprise there even in the _19C_ whan the Spaniards had other countries to copy. So why be surprised at not getting it in Rome? -- Mike Stone - Peterborough, England "To be good is noble. To teach others to be good is yet nobler - and far less trouble." Mark Twain >> > It seems to me that the Roman problem wasn't that they didn't build >> > canals; they did, where they were necessary. The problem, rather, seems [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There was enough of a demand from _somebody_ to get them financed. They > can't ahve been exactly cheap. They weren't cheap but the demand didn't come from the masses. At most a segment of the wealthy elite. >> What you needed was somebody with brains to see that they could increase >> commerce and do it even if it was costly and didn't make them a huge [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Senatorial class (like most ruling classes in most times and places) > considered commerce beneath their dignity. At least at one time they were bared. They were supposed to derive their wealth from estates as I understand it. If you haven't looked all ready it might be good to read about Roman government under the Republic. It was like nothing I had imagined. I had thought the Senate could pass laws or at least got to vote on them. >> A lack of vision and civic mindedness can be as fatal a flaw as any. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > commercial enterprise there even in the _19C_ whan the Spaniards had other > countries to copy. So why be surprised at not getting it in Rome? I think I said they got surprisingly close to the industrial revolution without making it over the bar. I was surprised at how close they were. It is my personal guess that printing would have pushed them over the top if introduced fairly early. That didn't happen so the revolution had a wait a rather long time. Of course if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so much either. > -- > Mike Stone - Peterborough, England [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mark Twain Being good isn't hard. Trying to excel is a pain. You have fun now. > I think I said they got surprisingly close to the industrial revolution > without making it over the bar. I was surprised at how close they were. It > is my personal guess that printing would have pushed them over the top if > introduced fairly early. That didn't happen so the revolution had a wait a > rather long time. I don't really follow. Why should printing have made any difference? Europeans had printing from some time in the 15C, but it was another 300 years before the Industrial Revolution started - and then only in one or two countries (Britain first, Belgium a bit later iirc) for the first half century or so. Plenty of Western (and indeed non-western) nations had had printing for generations without any particular results as far as industrialisation was concerned. Spain certainly had, but didn't take any part in the early IR, and was quite slow even in copying those who did. Nor were the Russian and Ottoman Empires, which were at least as akin to Rome, socially and politically,as Britain or Belgium were, exactly pioneers in thata rea. > Of course if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so much either. Quite. I've never really understood the obsession with Rome when this subject comes up. I'd have thought China at least as credible a candidate for an IR in the "Roman" period, and Japan, in almost any era, as more likely than either. Renaissance Italy was as literate and urbanised as it had been in Roman times, but also had no IR. If these societies didn't manage it, there seems no particular reason to expect Rome to do any better. FTM, did Rome have anything going for it that, say, 17C Spain, Turkey or Russia didn't? The IR seems to have been a _very_ exceptional occurence, which even 90% of modern Western societies never did of their own accord, and certainly no non-Western or pre-Western society came within a thousand miles of doing. -- Mike Stone - Peterborough, England "To be good is noble. To teach others to be good is yet nobler - and far less trouble." Mark Twain > > I think I said they got surprisingly close to the industrial revolution > > without making it over the bar. I was surprised at how close they were. It [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't really follow. Why should printing have made any difference? Higher literacy, readier access to books. I don't think it would make an industrial revolution happen, though. > Plenty of Western (and indeed non-western) nations had had printing for > generations without any particular results as far as industrialisation was > concerned. Spain certainly had, but didn't take any part in the early IR, > and was quite slow even in copying those who did. Nor were the Russian and > Ottoman Empires, which were at least as akin to Rome, socially and > politically,as Britain or Belgium were, exactly pioneers in thata rea. Eh, I'm not sure I'd say taht the Ottomans and Russians were akin to the Romans. Roman cities, prior to the late empire, were fairly autonomous; and the roman banking system was probably better developed than the one in the Roman or Ottoman Empires. > Quite. I've never really understood the obsession with Rome when this > subject comes up. I'd have thought China at least as credible a candidate > for an IR in the "Roman" period, and Japan, in almost any era, as more > likely than either. Japan? I could see it in the early modern era, but why before then? The IR seems to have been a _very_ exceptional occurence, > which even 90% of modern Western societies never did of their own accord, > and certainly no non-Western or pre-Western society came within a thousand > miles of doing. Hmm. I think we've seen a credible argument for Song China, on this group. > > Quite. I've never really understood the obsession with Rome when this > > subject comes up. I'd have thought China at least as credible a candidate > > for an IR in the "Roman" period, and Japan, in almost any era, as more > > likely than either. > > Japan? I could see it in the early modern era, but why before then? Why not? Iirc it has the coal and iron which helped Britain get off to a good start, so has as much chance as anywhere, from a material pov, of having an IR. Of course its society was a lot diferent from Britain's, but so was Rome's and indeed anywhere else's you care to name in the anciejt world. -- Mike Stone - Peterborough, England "To be good is noble. To teach others to be good is yet nobler - and far less trouble." Mark Twain >> > I think I said they got surprisingly close to the industrial revolution >> > without making it over the bar. I was surprised at how close they were. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> for an IR in the "Roman" period, and Japan, in almost any era, as more >> likely than either. I think China may have come very near it or even edged over the line at some locations. I knew what stopped them when I learned how completely the bureaucrats controlled everything. Do you know that for the last 2,000 years nobody has been allowed to live at any location without getting documented and having permission from the local authorities? Then you have the "if grandpa didn't do it you bleeping aren't going to do it attitude." If you came up with a great new idea it didn't matter in Imperial China. There was a heck a of a lot more freedom under the Romans. > Japan? I could see it in the early modern era, but why before then? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hmm. I think we've seen a credible argument for Song China, on this > group. [snip] >Quite. I've never really understood the obsession with Rome when this >subject comes up. I'd have thought China at least as credible a candidate Maybe, it is simply that Rome is better known. >for an IR in the "Roman" period, and Japan, in almost any era, as more >likely than either. Renaissance Italy was as literate and urbanised as it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and certainly no non-Western or pre-Western society came within a thousand >miles of doing. So it was a fluke perhaps? IIRC, the alphabet was invented once, and all other alphabets derived from that idea. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. > So it was a fluke perhaps? IIRC, the alphabet was invented once, >and all other alphabets derived from that idea. Nope. If you mean *alphabet* then, no. There are other alphabetic scripts and enough of them are widely separated enough in space and travel time to make it unlikely that they were derived from the earliest known version. In any case, *writing* considerably predates, IIRC, the invention of the first alphabetic script. So, if you mean *writing*, then the answer is, again, no. The earliest forms of pre-writing can be traced back to the general area of the fertile crescent and it seems reasonably certain that Sumerian was the first actual written form of a language. There is a long and ongoing argument as to the origin of Egyptian heiroglyphics ... some claim that they got the whole kit and kaboodle from Sumeria, which I think is pretty unconvincing; others think that they got the *idea* from Sumeria ... y'know, returning travellers bring the message of this neat new idea as to how to keep records etc. and then developed their own form of writing from pre-existing proto symbols that seem to have been widespread throughout the mediterranean (and probably elsewhere). China is thought to have developed writing entirely by themselves. And, of course, the Aztecs had their pictorial writing and there is recent work to suggest that the quipu of the Inca were form of actual writing as well, rather than merely tabulation of figures as has been long thought. It's an interesting field ... lots of new developments. Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au >> I think I said they got surprisingly close to the industrial revolution >> without making it over the bar. I was surprised at how close they were. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I don't really follow. Why should printing have made any difference? Maybe I'm wrong but one of the things that I think is needed for true industrialization is a certain fermentation of and blooming in ideas. That means a degree of civil liberties and freedom of thought and action with access to ideas people can build on. Printing can provide a growing body of useful knowledge to build on while the form of government determines the whether or not people have a chance to do anything with it. > Europeans had printing from some time in the 15C, but it was another 300 > years before the Industrial Revolution started - and then only in one or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ottoman Empires, which were at least as akin to Rome, socially and > politically,as Britain or Belgium were, exactly pioneers in thata rea. I don't see a feudal society as a likely home for the development of industrialization. >> Of course if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so much > either. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mark Twain deowll Jan 12, 3:48 am >I don't see a feudal society as a likely home for the >development of industrialization Why not? I'd have thought a _slave_ society even less promising. -- Mike Stone - Peterborough, England "To be good is noble. To teach others to be good is yet nobler - and far less trouble." Mark Twain >deowll Jan 12, 3:48 am > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I'd have thought a _slave_ society even less promising. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "feudal". Arguably the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was in the 1450's and on ... what we loosely call the "Renaissance" ... and where most countries were still feudal in many respects. Certainly, in many ways, the UK was *still* Feudal in the 17th and 18th centuries. Y'know, Divine Right of Kings still played a part, and the Great Nobles really did run things even if it was through Parliament. Arguably. Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au >>deowll Jan 12, 3:48 am >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Arguably. You do have a point and I don't see the big estates as giving that big a push into industrialization at first. > Phil > > Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au >>>deowll Jan 12, 3:48 am >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >You do have a point and I don't see the big estates as giving that big a >push into industrialization at first. Interestingly enough, that turns out not to be the case. The great estates (especially monastic ones) were the ones that developed the techniques that created what is loosely called the "Agricultural Revolution" of the later medieval/early renaissance period that basically *doubled* the yields they achieved over the *average* yields. This represented real wealth and, being industrious types, they re-invested it in capital intensive industries ... iron working, strangely enough, was one, and implemented or developed many of the advanced technologies that led to the agricultural revolution. I am not aware, offhand, of any of the "aristocratic" families doing the same, or not directly enough to make a difference, but it would be wrong to believe that the "big estates" were somehow opposed to/not interested in industrialisation. Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au >>>>deowll Jan 12, 3:48 am >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > wrong to believe that the "big estates" were somehow opposed to/not > interested in industrialisation. I don't call a monastery an estate. I call the family seat of an aristocratic family an estate. Some of them did do a fair amount to advance farming. I need to think on this. I suppose I actually need to know what class of people were investing money in industry but you can't move people off the farm unless you can feed them and that meant more food from fewer farmers. > Phil > > Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au >>>>>deowll Jan 12, 3:48 am >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >off the farm unless you can feed them and that meant more food from fewer >farmers. Many monestaries did have large estates. Why else do you thing Henry VIII (in England) was so keen to take them over? Eric Stevens |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message