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

41–50 of 208 posts

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

#41

Post by londons_explore »

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.

My weekends camping rarely cost me more than $20.

$1.50 on food per meal.

$1 on camping gas or coal for the weekend.

$200 of gear, but it will last me 20+ camping weekends.

$0 on travel, because I'll be hiking.

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

#42

Post by joefourier »

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…

The eastern half of the empire was just as Christian and didn’t collapse for another thousand years, so you can’t really point to Christianity as the cause.

I don’t know why people obsess over finding a cause for the fall of Rome when it was one of the world’s longest lasting empires. We should be more interested in how it endured for over a millennia (nearly two thousand years if you count the Republic) whereas most continent-spanning empires fell apart in a handful of centuries or even decades.

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

#43

Post by ugl »

leobg wrote: post #36

Beethoven, too, is suspected to have died from lead poisoning. In his case, too, a drinking cup for wine made of lead is the prime suspect.

Lead, or pewter [0]? Which was and still does sometimes contain lead which acidic drinks like wine can leach the Pb into solution.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pewter

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

#44

Post by MagnumOpus »

dqpb wrote: post #19

What does the “Fall of Rome” actually mean? It’s not like everyone died or disappeared. They just stopped being ruled by a particular government.

A lot of people died - starved or got killed by disease, pillagers or such like. The population of Italy and Greece post the Empire was probably only half of what it was during the Roman times.

But even beyond that, the “fall” of Rome (the city) meant that its one million former inhabitants now largely became rural subsistence farmers rather than artisans/craftsmen/smiths/teachers in a city with theatres, race tracks, running fresh water, spas and food trucks. If the US underwent the same sort of change, you might call it “fallen” too…

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

#45

Post by WanderPanda »

londons_explore wrote: post #35

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.…

The sad thing is that this point of view is just not accepted to be discussed e.g. in case of (covid) vaccines or other large scale innovations. I'm not a fan of intelligence measuring the potential of a society but just to give an idea of the non-linearities that can be in play here: A reduction of just 3 IQ points on average leads to a 10 fold decrease in people of IQs around 140.

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

#46

Post by colechristensen »

dqpb wrote: post #19

What does the “Fall of Rome” actually mean? It’s not like everyone died or disappeared. They just stopped being ruled by a particular government.

Lots of people died and disappeared, whole cities were abandoned, those that weren’t often had a tenth of their previous populations, people receded to subsistence agriculture, and literacy went to almost zero. If you took an interest in a subject and read a few books, you could be the worlds foremost expert on it. This was most prevalent in the west.

Rome was just a few sparks away from triggering an industrial revolution a thousand years early.

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

#47

Post by ugl »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #8

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

The infloor and in-wall heating systems are just recently being re-introduced! 2000+ years later. Even small buildings in the wilds of england are found with hypocaust tiles. I just saw a video introducing a brand-new underfloor heating system using hot air! The not leaking liquid was a big selling point.

Everything old is new again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocaust

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

#48

Post by dukeofdoom »

InCityDreams wrote: post #34
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.

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.

Based on Canadian Prices, a working guy would spend. And not even going very far from home.

Gas $100

Beer $50

Cigs $15

Ontario Park Campsite $59/night x 2 = $120

Firewood 2 x $15 = $30

Some basic sausages and food = $50

Total $375

Min Wage $15/hour. Hours of work = 25 hours

Actually it would take more than 25 hours, because most likely that person does not live with Grandma and has shelter / food expenses. So might need to save up for a month, if not months.

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

#49

Post by ssully »

londons_explore wrote: post #41
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.

My weekends camping rarely cost me more than $20. $1.50 on food per meal. $1 on camping gas or coal for the weekend. $200 of gear, but it will last me 20+ camping weekends. $0 on travel, because I'll be hiking.

It was a viral post from a few weeks back. From what I remember the main cost increase was because of gas prices.

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

#50

Post by soco »

WanderPanda wrote: post #45
londons_explore wrote: post #35

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.…

The sad thing is that this point of view is just not accepted to be discussed e.g. in case of (covid) vaccines or other large scale innovations. I'm not a fan of intelligence measuring the potential of a society but just to give an idea of the non-linearities that can be in play here: A reduction of just 3 IQ points on average leads to a 10 fold decrease in people of IQs around 140.

Looking at the worldwide reception of vaccines in general, one could argue the downfall has started way earlier.
Post reply on HN