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

181–190 of 208 posts

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

#181

Post by jcranmer »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #177
googlryas wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even spending $50 in one direction on gas isn't insane for a weekend camping trip, a couple hours of highway driving at current prices, but I don't think anyone would consider that "not far from home" as OP stated. > For what it's worth, this is not allowed in many parks. Sure, but you don't need to camp in parks. That helps save on the $60/night fee as well. > You'll probably buy some special meat to grill, marshmal…

I see your point. But the flip side is how better off people do these silly calculations how they can penny pinch a 10% cheaper price on something the poor person should buy instead of what they want. What they neglect to consider is the experience of trying to penny pinch. And the decreased value of what they end up getting. I can penny pinch and buy a really crappy loaf of bread for $3.5 or pay $6 for sourdough bre…

Which campsite costs $59/night? Looking at Algonquin Provincial Park, a full RV hookup comes out to $53.68/night, the most expensive non-hookup is $47.46/night, and the cheapest one is $42.38/night.

(Prices quoted from https://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/visit/general_park_info/fees...).

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

#182

Post by rurban »

chewz wrote: post #180

Everyone knows that the downfall of Roman Empire was cause by removal of Statue of Victory from Rome's Senate by christian zealots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar_of_Victory#Removal

Close. This was the downfall in popular belief. The real cause was of course the victory of Christianism over Rationalism, which caused hundreds of years of dark ages.

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

#184

Post by geranim0 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #97
Ekaros wrote: post #15

So often any of these single causal theories forget to look at timespan. Which was either decades or centuries... If system survived previously with mostly same things in place there is really no reason why such thing as lead pipes would be the cause of downfall part. By any reasonable conclusion the culprit in such case should be some disruptive innovation. In the end gradual natural degradation of system is much mo…

Complex systems fail due to single causes exactly that way. First the system runs well; once the cause is introduced the system adapts so that the visible cost is minimal, but the adaptations are costly by themselves, and demand further adaptations; then the adaptation cycle runs for a while (that can be very long), until everything finally breaks down. It is very unlikely that the lead pipes that were there since th…

Curious if you have any reading suggestion on how complex systems fail?

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

#185

Post by paganel »

panick21_ wrote: post #155
paganel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also how the Byzantine Empire went into its downwards trajectory starting with the late 1000s. In fact, it was a little more complicated, as the Empire had to resort to using mercenaries because its theme system had been basically broken into pieces by the Empire oligarchy and by the Church, so Byzantium having to resort to mercenaries in order to defend itself was mostly, by that time, a consequence of said oli…

I don't think this is a good argument. The Byzantine Empire was at a peak around 1000 and the main reasons for it decline after that is not mercenaries but rather that Basil didn't have an heir and his daughters were left in power and had no interest in ruling so that only a few decades later the state was disaster. Combine that with the rise of a new powerful enemy and you have a disaster on your hands. New evidence…

Regarding Basil II, an empire shouldn't stay in/depend on just one dynasty, or just one exceptional person (even though it helps having such person at the helm), I'd say the rot was there even when Basil II was on the throne but the latter years proved that in the absence of such an exceptional leader there was almost nothing holding it up all together.

I stand by my opinion regarding the Heraclius era. I would have said Justinian, but one can still see traces of the Roman heritage here and there during his reign, but after Danube limes fell in the late 500s it wasn't the "hellenised" Romans battling the Slavs and Avars, but the Byzantines (yes, I know they were calling themselves the Rhōmaîoi).

Back to Heraclius's reign, once the Arabs came on the scene things were totally, totally different. I know people now like to diss on Pirenne for his Mohammed and Charlemagne and for how he insisted on the disruption, in fact the total destruction, of most of Mediterranean trade caused by their advent on the historical scene, but he was, in essence, right, especially when it comes to the "Western" Mediterranean (not sure how I would exactly define "Western" Mediterranean for that period, hence the quotes). Things were never the same after that. Also, the Byzantine Iconoclasm phenomenon wouldn't have happened without the close contacts with the Arabs, and, again, this is of course my own personal pov, Iconoclasm is totally a non-Roman-like phenomenon.

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

#186

Post by cassepipe »

panick21_ wrote: post #157
cassepipe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually quite a good remark. The most compelling theory I have read on the fall of the western part of the empire was that a mode of production based a land based elite that relied on slavery came to have a lot of limitations. The war machine kept it going as new land could be given to fighting soldiers (that would become less of a threat when settled) and fueled the economy with ever more slave. When Rome in…

> mode of production based a land based elite that relied on slavery came to have a lot of limitations This whole theory came from the 60s where Marxist historiography was very popular and really is not based on much. It just basically taking the Marxism 101 and plastering it over the historical empire and the source base for it is a few political speeches. Modern history that looks this can almost universally not ve…

Ooops I must have found it too compelling only because it aligned with my worldview (and was well written). Thanks for taking the time to assess those arguments.

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

#187

Post by somenameforme »

Ekaros wrote: post #15

So often any of these single causal theories forget to look at timespan. Which was either decades or centuries... If system survived previously with mostly same things in place there is really no reason why such thing as lead pipes would be the cause of downfall part. By any reasonable conclusion the culprit in such case should be some disruptive innovation. In the end gradual natural degradation of system is much mo…

Countries, let alone empires, are very large entities. I'd argue that they fail long before they collapse. Consider the Soviet Union. While the final reason they collapsed was economic, it would be difficult to argue that it could have continued to persist indefinitely otherwise.

In my opinion the Soviet Union had failed decades prior to its collapse (which is saying something for a system that only lasted 69 years), the root cause being the loss of faith of their own citizenry. And in such a scenario, any bump in the road is suddenly going to turn into a catastrophe. I think blaming the bump is failing to see the forest through all those trees.

The Roman Empire spanned from Great Britain, across Europe, and even along North Africa. And the speed of light was the speed of horseback or sail. Things, even when done with the utmost haste, were slow. And so in this scenario the separation between the failure and collapse was going to be even greater.

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

#188

Post by thaumasiotes »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #167
thaumasiotes wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> never drank $25 of beer per day(while camping), never bought cigarettes A bigger problem with the itemization of cigarettes is that listing them as a camping expense implies that you smoke more while camping than you would otherwise, which makes no sense.

I listed beer and cigarettes, because its a common vice of lower class working people. Less so than it used to be. But $15 dollars is just for one pack in Ontario. So the guy is rationing his cigarette pack over 2 days.

> But $15 dollars is just for one pack in Ontario. So the guy is rationing his cigarette pack over 2 days.

That means camping is cheaper than the alternative. It's insane to list saving money as if it were a cost of camping.

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

#189

Post by thaumasiotes »

davidgay wrote: post #174
thaumasiotes wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wasn't the dole only implemented because land ownership had concentrated to a few extremely wealthy individuals? It was implemented because it got votes. It's not a coincidence that it was restricted to people who could vote. You get welfare whenever you expand the franchise too far.

> You get welfare whenever you expand the franchise too far. So, pray tell, what was the step too far (in no particular order): - women - slaves - non-property owners - non-poll-tax payers - 18 year olds ... and in which of those categories do you fall?

Non-property owners.

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

#190

Post by vintermann »

xor99 wrote: post #142

Hmmm... the offending compound was lead acetate which was also used as a general sweetener, sugar substitute, and to preserve fruit/veg. So I think the scope for the influence of lead poisoning is a bit higher than suggested in the article. It's still a huge stretch to blame it for the entire downfall though ofc!

Well, if I hadn't known, you would have a hard time convincing me that crime waves in the 20th century were caused by leaded gasoline too, but the evidence really is quite damning.

I think we can agree that the Roman Empire fell as a result of some bad decisions. (Exactly which bad decisions, we may argue about). If lead really messes with your brain in subtle, dangerous ways - and it does - then it is at least plausible that some of those bad decisions would not have been taken.

But where we do have a large variety of comparable countries which phased out lead in gasoline at different times, we don't have a large variety of 1st century Mediterranean empires which phased out lead at different times. So we really can't know with any certainty.

So maybe it's more useful to focus on the more immediate causes of the fall of the Roman empire. It does depend on what we hope to get out of that sort of discussion - if it's a do and don't for modern politics, I still think "don't underestimate environmental poisons" is pretty well-justified.

Post reply on HN