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

The horrors of Pompeii

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#111

Post by qwytw »

truculent wrote: post #56
n8henrie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the detractors of your comment would have less ground if you compared the life expectancy at 10 yo in Pompeii to that of a 10 yo from, say, 100 years ago, in which case at least I find it surprising that the difference is not far greater.

The Middle Ages is not Rome. I think it’s plausible that Roman society would fare better

Why? There is evidence suggesting that the number calories available and the general quality of nutrition for median person increased after the collapse of the Roman empire.

Both because of a significant decrease in taxation but mostly because the plague, climate change and warfare killed half or so killed half of the people living in Europe at the time.

The same thing happened in the 1300s and 1400s as the number of people decreases significantly the quality of life for those who remained increased (more land per capita).

Additionally there were significant technological developments during the middle ages which resulted in higher crop yields (especially in northern Europe) (heavy plow, horse collars, wind mills, more water mills, 3 and later 4 field crop rotation, general improvements in metallurgy...

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#112

Post by DoreenMichele »

pipes wrote: post #104
DoreenMichele wrote: post #33

Graffiti is one of the most exciting kinds of evidence preserved for us by the destruction of Pompeii, because it comes not from the literature of the elite, or the inscriptions of the powerful, but from a wider cross-section of society. The article is mostly about slavery and prostitution, colored by modern views of the world. For much of human history, people were simply trying to survive and life expectancy was us…

What context would excuse slavery? Everyone was at it so it was ok? Under certain circumstances it was ok? I'm wary of critising historical figures for being racist etc ( e.g.they recently renamed the Hume building in Edinburgh because he had some racists views, which is ridiculous). However I don't think it's possible to paint slavery as ok because it was the style at the time.

I didn't say anything like that, though I will note we still have the expression wage slave.

There was also a practice of indentured servitude which people seem to see as basically slavery but was more like a loan in an era where money per se was hard to get hold of. In the absence of the ability to borrow money to pay a cost you couldn't cover, you signed over your future labor for a set period.

It was somewhat common for a time for people to immigrate to the US colonies via indentured servitude as a means to pay their passage -- cover the price of the boat to get here -- because they had no other means to pay it.

Similarly, there was an expression of "working off a dead horse" for people who joined the British Navy or similar to pay off a debt. It referred to both paying the debt ("dead horse") and the lousy hard tack they fed you while you had no money for niceties like food you preferred to eat.

For that matter, to this day, joining the military is more like being "owned" than it is like "having a job." So the clear bright line on slavery vs not slavery that many people want to imagine exists doesn't actually exist.

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#113

Post by memling »

brazzy wrote: post #89
dumdumchan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Janus the fifth" and "KD6-3.7"

That's not at all how it worked. "The fifth slave I bought" and "the fifth son of this super rich senator" would have exactly the same name, Quintus.

Not sure precisely why you're being downvoted for bringing some additional light to the conversation. Been busy here but appreciate the insights; this isn't my field. Are there good sources that clarify the complexities of Roman naming conventions?

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#114

Post by kergonath »

kwk1 wrote: post #108
kergonath wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hey, maybe Rome wasn't always a progressive advanced bastion of civilization that we should emulate, maybe a lot of people (even the privileged of the time) had terrible experiences, and maybe some of the regular glorification of the past that we engage in is misplaced, both materially and morally? Isn’t this a straw man, though? Roman art and culture has a very important part in western minds, if only because our…

> But I haven’t seen anyone saying that life was better in the Roman Empire, ever. There's an entire meme format to this effect ("R E T V R N", imitating Latin engravings.)

Damn. I am not sure I should go down this particular rabbit hole. From what I have seen it looks more or less like the “Sparta is kewl” movement, but then I am an outsider. Would you have any pointer to help me make sense of this?

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#115

Post by WalterBright »

autoexec wrote: post #30
WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet millions of others got an education, roads, internet, etc., and went nowhere. Investors don't give you money. They buy a piece of the business. Banks don't give you money, either. You have to pay the loan back, with interest. BTW, employee back wages have first dibs on your assets should you declare bankruptcy. The back wages won't be much, anyway, as the law is pretty specific that a business cannot be late…

> And yet millions of others got an education, roads, internet, etc., and went nowhere. And millions of others are highly skilled, talented, intelligent, hardworking, and creative, but don't all find success. This is why luck plays a massive role in the success of any business. That doesn't mean things like skills and initiative aren't important, or that people can't shift the odds in their favor (see for example htt…

I'm curious how far you want to go with "you didn't build that". How about taking away the Beatles' success because they didn't make their own guitars? How about taking away gold medals from Olympic athletes? How about telling Picasso he didn't paint that? How about taking away the Oscars from actors because it was all other people? Maybe take away Hamilton's F1 World Championships?

Isn't the success of those people so unfair and undeserved?

If you paid a contractor to remodel your bathroom, and then sold your house for a higher price, is the contractor entitled to a piece of that action?

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#116

Post by DropInIn »

pipes wrote: post #104
DoreenMichele wrote: post #33

Graffiti is one of the most exciting kinds of evidence preserved for us by the destruction of Pompeii, because it comes not from the literature of the elite, or the inscriptions of the powerful, but from a wider cross-section of society. The article is mostly about slavery and prostitution, colored by modern views of the world. For much of human history, people were simply trying to survive and life expectancy was us…

What context would excuse slavery? Everyone was at it so it was ok? Under certain circumstances it was ok? I'm wary of critising historical figures for being racist etc ( e.g.they recently renamed the Hume building in Edinburgh because he had some racists views, which is ridiculous). However I don't think it's possible to paint slavery as ok because it was the style at the time.

The commonest form of slavery was "survival slavery" wherein one party is desperate and willing to exchange thier freedom for being ensured the basic provisions of life.

This was exceptionally common back in the day, with there being the obligation to not leave, and is not really like a job though many of today would confuse it as such because they can't comprehend the concept that getting room and board is not the same as getting paid, especially when that's with the ever present threat of being kicked to the curb or beaten depending on the culture.

And in a world where every apple matters, it's not exactly a simple thing to take on an extra mouth, particularly at first when they're usually weak and unable to do much, thus why the enslaved is made to work so hard.

This naturally progresses into abusive systemic norms which weve seen develop in so many societies in history, but really it appears to me they almost all seem to start in a "survival slavery" format.

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#117

Post by WalterBright »

tharkun__ wrote: post #93
WalterBright wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were also severely restricted in what technology they could bring. But they still had fish hooks, survival clothing, advanced bow and arrows, an advanced saw or hatchet, fish line, and fire starter. Only one was able to make fire without a fire starter. After watching Alone, I bought myself a fire starter, to carry when hiking. I remember one father/son team. The son had some sort of fisheries degree, and consid…

If you want to see it done differently watch season 8. Spoiler alert: the winner built a simple hut, shows how to do it on his YouTube channel afterwards too. With a properly chimneyed fireplace though he had to improvise because his area did not have enough clay in the soil. He's had the channel for a long time. I knew his channel before. His bow was a simple longbow he made himself. He regularly goes elk and boar h…

> to see it done differently watch season 8

It's season 10 now, and they're back to making spectacular log cabins and then tapping out!

Re: The horrors of Pompeii

#118

Post by WalterBright »

twelve40 wrote: post #72
defrost wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally, Aboriginal groups were easily able to find enough food for their entire clan in three or four hours of hunting and gathering each day. They know which fruit and animals are available at certain times, how to gather or hunt successfully and how to store foods. https://svacs.libguides.com/c.php?g=933180&p=6746395 How do we know this to be true? There are still aboriginal people alive today that gather fod in…

how come famines were a thing then if this is so easy? my guess is that you probably picked a particular sparsely living group in particular favorable climate that eventually probably got wiped out by a hungrier group. furthermore, hunting for three hours no freaking way can sustain population density of say Indonesia, or some other Asian countries which have been populous for many centuries.

I read an article years ago where archaeologists studied the bones of pre-Columbian Native Americans. They found evidence of repeated famines.
Post reply on HN