5 ms·

If you were living in Rome in the year 477, I wonder if you were deemed part of a cranky unmentionable fringe for expressing the idea that your civilisation was

If you were living in Rome in the year 477, I wonder if you were deemed part of a cranky unmentionable fringe for expressing the idea that your civilisation was decaying and indeed collapsing all around you.

olavk 9y ago
No, the Roman culture always considered themselves in a state of decline compared to the mythical "golden age", so that would be the mainstream viewpoint.
- PopsiclePete 9y ago
  Hell, many Americans today consider the US to be in decline compared to some equally mythical period of the 1950's when men were men, women knew their place, and youngsters respected their elders.
  - dboreham 9y ago
    That period wasn’t totally mythical as it corresponded to a time when much of the rest of the world’s production capacity had been destroyed by war and many of the world’s great countries had been empoverished fighting said war, and 10’s of millions of people in other countries had been recently killed by war. As a result the USA enjoyed a one-time huge commercial advantage that may not have been obvious to everyone (and it seems still isn’t).
quotemstr 9y ago
477 wasn't that bad. Ravenna was capital, but Rome itself was kept in decent shape. The forum continued to be swept. The aqueducts kept working. Still, at the time, the population was declining and civic upkeep became harder and harder. The Senate still met. There are stories of thieves stealing whole statues while poorly paid watchmen slept or we're bribed not to notice. It reminds me a bit of Detroit. Still, the structure of the city was fairly well preserved. It wasn't until the Gothic Wars in a few decades until Rome was utterly wrecked and depopulated. The city changed hands five or six times, and armies frequently cut the aqueducts, never to be repaired. The last recorded act of the Senate was in 603. Then, around 900, a few earthquakes caused the final collapse of long neglected buildings. Nobody cared to fix them, but they did use the rubble for other construction over the next few hundred years. (Not that there was that much new construction: Rome's population crashed from over a million to 30,000.)

olavk 9y ago

No, the Roman culture always considered themselves in a state of decline compared to the mythical "golden age", so that would be the mainstream viewpoint.

PopsiclePete 9y ago
Hell, many Americans today consider the US to be in decline compared to some equally mythical period of the 1950's when men were men, women knew their place, and youngsters respected their elders.
- dboreham 9y ago
  That period wasn’t totally mythical as it corresponded to a time when much of the rest of the world’s production capacity had been destroyed by war and many of the world’s great countries had been empoverished fighting said war, and 10’s of millions of people in other countries had been recently killed by war. As a result the USA enjoyed a one-time huge commercial advantage that may not have been obvious to everyone (and it seems still isn’t).

quotemstr 9y ago

477 wasn't that bad. Ravenna was capital, but Rome itself was kept in decent shape. The forum continued to be swept. The aqueducts kept working. Still, at the time, the population was declining and civic upkeep became harder and harder. The Senate still met. There are stories of thieves stealing whole statues while poorly paid watchmen slept or we're bribed not to notice. It reminds me a bit of Detroit. Still, the structure of the city was fairly well preserved. It wasn't until the Gothic Wars in a few decades until Rome was utterly wrecked and depopulated. The city changed hands five or six times, and armies frequently cut the aqueducts, never to be repaired. The last recorded act of the Senate was in 603. Then, around 900, a few earthquakes caused the final collapse of long neglected buildings. Nobody cared to fix them, but they did use the rubble for other construction over the next few hundred years. (Not that there was that much new construction: Rome's population crashed from over a million to 30,000.)