4 ms·

>an improvement in human welfare Was this generally the outcome of the Roman Empire's collapse? Intuitively, I would expect breakdowns in law and order and the

>an improvement in human welfare Was this generally the outcome of the Roman Empire's collapse? Intuitively, I would expect breakdowns in law and order and the collapse of complex supply chain systems (particularly food delivery) to result in mass human suffering, at least in the short term.

adrianN 9y ago
Not to mention infrastructure like public baths and sewers.
nostrademons 9y ago
For whom, and according to what value system? The histories I've read of the early middle ages corroborate much of your intuition. Trade collapsed; many luxury goods became impossible to obtain at any price; illiteracy rose; population declined and many citizens died from famine and plague. But there's often a trade-off between freedom and convenience, then and now. The Roman empire was built upon large-scale slavery and wealth inequality. If you were a member of the elite, then yes, the collapse was terrible; you lost access to all the privileges of the empire. If you were a slave, you probably ended up somewhat better off, becoming either a peasant or a bandit. Not being able to obtain pottery or steel doesn't matter much if you couldn't afford it to begin with, and dying at 40 from starvation is an improvement on dying at 25 in the arena.
- Trill-I-Am 9y ago
  What if you were a peasant? Did your life get worse?
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    Probably somewhat better, in the sense that your imperial overlords became spectacularly ineffective at taxing you.
    - eecc 9y ago
      Except the local abbot would happily take 1/10 of the fruits of your labor, the landlord even more, and you stood no chance seeking better fortunes away because roads were in disrepair, infested by robbers and patrolled by mercenaries tasked to kill any fugitive...
    - toyg 9y ago
      But you died of famine and disease more often - population went way down. It became harder to trade even the most basic foodstuff, since simple roads to the closest market became unsafe. Eventually feudalism happened and a lot of simple peasants were literally enslaved to the land.
- 1gor 9y ago
  > If you were a slave, you probably ended up somewhat better off Slavery continued to exist in Western Europe after the fall of Roman empire until at least year 1000 AD. In other former parts of Roman Empire such as Northern Africa slavery continued to flourish almost until the 19th century.
  - hcho 9y ago
    The number of people in slavery would have still decreased. The fact that it continued to exist is immaterial to the point being made.
    - 1gor 9y ago
      > The number of people in slavery would have still decreased On what basis are you making this assumption? "The fall of Rome" was not an anti-slavery uprising. It was gradual disappearance of the central authority (and all its benefits such as roads, law and order etc). About 10% of England's population entered in the Domesday Book (1086) were slaves. Compare that with the Roman Empire where slave population (including Rome and all provinces) are estimated at 10-15% of the total.
      - hcho 9y ago
        The biggest buyer of slaves going down would decimate the market, no? I would imagine it would have played exactly like abolition of slavery in Britain or US. There was still slavery across the world, but the number of people that suffered from it went down.
zipwitch 9y ago
I seem to recall one essay I read (long ago back in college and which a modicum of google-fu fails to locate) that argued that average caloric intake went sharply up in the territories of the Western Roman Empire in the decades after it's collapse.

adrianN 9y ago

Not to mention infrastructure like public baths and sewers.

nostrademons 9y ago

For whom, and according to what value system? The histories I've read of the early middle ages corroborate much of your intuition. Trade collapsed; many luxury goods became impossible to obtain at any price; illiteracy rose; population declined and many citizens died from famine and plague. But there's often a trade-off between freedom and convenience, then and now. The Roman empire was built upon large-scale slavery and wealth inequality. If you were a member of the elite, then yes, the collapse was terrible; you lost access to all the privileges of the empire. If you were a slave, you probably ended up somewhat better off, becoming either a peasant or a bandit. Not being able to obtain pottery or steel doesn't matter much if you couldn't afford it to begin with, and dying at 40 from starvation is an improvement on dying at 25 in the arena.

Trill-I-Am 9y ago
What if you were a peasant? Did your life get worse?
- nostrademons 9y ago
  Probably somewhat better, in the sense that your imperial overlords became spectacularly ineffective at taxing you.
  - eecc 9y ago
    Except the local abbot would happily take 1/10 of the fruits of your labor, the landlord even more, and you stood no chance seeking better fortunes away because roads were in disrepair, infested by robbers and patrolled by mercenaries tasked to kill any fugitive...
  - toyg 9y ago
    But you died of famine and disease more often - population went way down. It became harder to trade even the most basic foodstuff, since simple roads to the closest market became unsafe. Eventually feudalism happened and a lot of simple peasants were literally enslaved to the land.
1gor 9y ago
> If you were a slave, you probably ended up somewhat better off Slavery continued to exist in Western Europe after the fall of Roman empire until at least year 1000 AD. In other former parts of Roman Empire such as Northern Africa slavery continued to flourish almost until the 19th century.
- hcho 9y ago
  The number of people in slavery would have still decreased. The fact that it continued to exist is immaterial to the point being made.
  - 1gor 9y ago
    > The number of people in slavery would have still decreased On what basis are you making this assumption? "The fall of Rome" was not an anti-slavery uprising. It was gradual disappearance of the central authority (and all its benefits such as roads, law and order etc). About 10% of England's population entered in the Domesday Book (1086) were slaves. Compare that with the Roman Empire where slave population (including Rome and all provinces) are estimated at 10-15% of the total.
    - hcho 9y ago
      The biggest buyer of slaves going down would decimate the market, no? I would imagine it would have played exactly like abolition of slavery in Britain or US. There was still slavery across the world, but the number of people that suffered from it went down.

zipwitch 9y ago

I seem to recall one essay I read (long ago back in college and which a modicum of google-fu fails to locate) that argued that average caloric intake went sharply up in the territories of the Western Roman Empire in the decades after it's collapse.