Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

talesoftimesforgotten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 208 posts

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#31

Post by Psyladine »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #8

I was surprised how nice their homes were. Had nicer villas than most people's homes.

While not a proper historian I find Dan Carlin's observations very interesting, especially him comparing how, historically speaking, the middle class of their period had a lifestyle quite envious to our own, more akin to how we imagine the "idle rich" today (servants for all menial tasks, expansive homes, lackadaisical lifestyles and high quality education for personal pursuits). Underlaid of course by the same conceits we apply to the modern rich: they live on the backs of millions who, comparatively, are effectively slaves.

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-26-blitz-...

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#32

Post by bitwize »

This was the pet theory of my chemistry professor in college. Having learned more about the Roman Empire, which didn't fall so much as shrank and withdrew to the east before being conquered by the Ottomans, I can look back and say "Yeah, I bet as a chemist he'd like to believe that."

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#33

Post by boomboomsubban »

narag wrote: post #16
comrh wrote: post #3

One thing I really got out of the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan is if anyone tells you there was ONE cause of the fall of Rome, they're full of crap.

That's very reasonable. But there was a slow collapse of the economy that is an intermediate cause in the chain of events that is central to the fall. You can speculate what caused that collapse, that in turn caused the fall and there are also many causes to consider, but again, there is one intermediate cause that is Christianism. The religion altered several aspects of the economy: slavery, commerce and lending. No…

If you blame Christianity, what about all of Constantine's other major changes? Was it the Tetrarchy? The formation of Constantinople? The restructuring of the government or military? The introduction of a new currency? All monumental changes that had about as much of an effect as the change of religious policy.

I'm no fan of Christianity, but the claim that it was central to the fall always comes off as somewhat lazy. Religion needed reform, and maybe they could have done it in a different manner which would have led to a more stable West but it just as likely could have destroyed the East.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#34

Post by InCityDreams »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #14
dralley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you really want to boil it down to a single reason, the best candidate would be "becoming militarily dependent on hired mercenaries and then not paying them" rather than something more interesting

I can see that happening. Thinking about Canada. The other day I calculated it would take 25 hours of work for the minimum wage worker to afford a weekend camping. And I think that's a pretty good indication we're pretty close collapse. Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed.

Based on what/ divided how? Purchasing a tent, utensils, backpack etc ie starting from scratch, or assuming everything already paid for and just 'real costs' ie food, tent-place (ground rent?)? Decathlon.fr or .co.uk prices can be pretty cheap, but I'm not sure where the costs start.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#35

Post by londons_explore »

This article argues against the fall of the roman empire being caused by severe lead poisoning.

I would argue that it was more likely caused by widespread minor lead poisoning. If everyone is more forgetful and learns slower, then that isn't something that will be written in history books - the people themselves will just consider that 'normal'.

Yet an empire of forgetful and slow-learning people won't be efficient. Every task will take more man-hours to achieve. Productivity will be lower. Accidents will happen more frequently. Crime will be higher. Strategic mistakes will be made by rulers, but will also be made by local rulers and individual families. "Should we plant corn or wheat this year?" - someone with intellect may read a book to discover the best crop or do a small scale trial, while someone with lead poisoning may just do the same as he did last year because it takes less mental effort.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#37

Post by SoftTalker »

hengri wrote: post #26
dukeofdoom wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see that happening. Thinking about Canada. The other day I calculated it would take 25 hours of work for the minimum wage worker to afford a weekend camping. And I think that's a pretty good indication we're pretty close collapse. Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed.

Do you think that average people throughout history had the means of going on weekend camping trips.

IDK. Camping can be very cheap. I went on camping trips all the time as a teenager and I had almost no money. Unless by "camping" you are talking about towing a small mobile home into a paved "campground" with electricity, water, showers and bathrooms.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#38

Post by debesyla »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #14
dralley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you really want to boil it down to a single reason, the best candidate would be "becoming militarily dependent on hired mercenaries and then not paying them" rather than something more interesting

I can see that happening. Thinking about Canada. The other day I calculated it would take 25 hours of work for the minimum wage worker to afford a weekend camping. And I think that's a pretty good indication we're pretty close collapse. Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed.

Isn't 25 work hours a really low amount of work? That's just a tiny bit more than 3 work days for whole weekend camping?

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#40

Post by aerostable_slug »

hengri wrote: post #26
dukeofdoom wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see that happening. Thinking about Canada. The other day I calculated it would take 25 hours of work for the minimum wage worker to afford a weekend camping. And I think that's a pretty good indication we're pretty close collapse. Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed.

Do you think that average people throughout history had the means of going on weekend camping trips.

I think they were called "hunting / gathering" for most of human history.

Heck, non-working pets (e.g. herd guardians, vermin control, etc.) were nearly unknown until relatively recently, because who had the wealth to feed a non-productive mouth?

Post reply on HN