3 ms·
Rome did not collapse because of environmental factors.
by narrator 9y ago
Rome did not collapse because of environmental factors.
- swombat 9y agoRome did not collapse at all, it just entered a long slow decline period where the central power became less and less effective while independent city states thrived and created numerous works of art, developed scientifically and commercially and militarily, and generally weren’t particularly aware that there was a “collapse” going on.
- kristjankalm 9y ago" generally weren’t particularly aware that there was a collapse going on" yes they very much were -- read the history of Gothic wars or Totila's sack of Rome. Even more the sack by Alaric in 410, despite the lack of damage done, was a truly shocking event for contemporary writers and external observers.
- jules 9y agoI wasn't aware of this. What art did they create, and which scientific, commercial, and military developments?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mcguire 9y agoSpecifically, between, say, 400 and 800CE?
- bhaak 9y agoAre you talking about the Roman Empire or the city of Rome? The city still exists and was never completely abandoned but having its population drop from 1 million to less than 50000 is a significant change. I guess, if you consider this change a "collapse" depends if you think it dropped fast enough. How much the fall of the (western) Roman Empire was due to or was accelerated by environmental factors is still up to debate. Was the migration period caused by climate changes? Or what role did the deforestation of the Italian peninsula play?