4 ms·

This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine. There was certainly the occasional period of inflation

This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine. There was certainly the occasional period of inflation and/or famine, but the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. They were certainly not malnourished, either. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones.

stcredzero 7y ago
This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine...the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. Yes, you're making a good point. Traditional societies that have lasted many generations are usually pretty good to excellent at knowing how to provide enough good food and clean water for themselves. That said, there are many people still alive who got enough food and grew up healthy, but recall always wanting to eat more as they grew up. People who are in this state are particularly affected by rewards of food. Also, I'm not sure if Celtic societies had peasants organized like those of medieval Europe. Celtic people lived in both dispersed rural environments and in cities. There was considerable trade. The common view is that people just tended to live in the community they grew up, but that people were free otherwise. Social stratification is said to have increased over time, and perhaps things would have ended up in the same place anyhow, without the Romans. The Celts also practiced slavery, like the Romans. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones. This can vary quite a bit in times of migration and transition.
User23 7y ago
This is one of the benefits of an agrarian economy. For example in the rural South during the great depression, virtually everyone was dirt poor, but almost nobody went hungry. Of course that meant eating squirrel, crow, possum, and such, plus garden vegetables.
barry-cotter 7y ago
In 1914 the U.K. had been the second richest economy in the world for over a hundred years. Nonetheless approaching a third of the male population eligible for conscription were in poor enough health that they were deemed unusable in war. The average American was a foot taller than the average Briton. The members of the House of Lords were noticeably taller than the members of the House of Commons, some of whom, presumably, had had long periods of poor nutrition in their lives. The norm was not perpetual famine but neither was the average peasant well fed except in transitory times of abundance. Normally the nobility and urban patriciate and cash rich populations like successful merchants would survive famines just fine though food would get more expensive. For the mass of the population lean years where the old, sick or young would die for lack of food would be every five years if they were lucky and about every thirty years a tenth to a third of the population would die in a famine. The unusual thing about the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s wasn’t that 1/4 of the population died; it was that that was the last time it happened. Famines were so unremarkable before the 1800s, even in Western Europe, that we often need to do archival detective work to figure out they happened. Do we see more people buried in paupers’ graves at this time? Do tree ring data suggest unusually harsh weather? Did grain prices rise? The literate classes weren’t indifferent to the suffering of those on the Malthusian margin of survival but large portions of the population dying of starvation every so often was normal.
- Amezarak 7y ago
  The late 1800s and early 1900s were notoriously terrible in UK and the literal shrinking and weakening of the population due to their diet is documented over time - and it was actually due to increasing trade, industrialization, and globalization. Beforehand things were much better. The expansion of available foods made things much worse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ > The fall in nutritional standards between 1880 and 1900 was so marked that the generations were visibly and progressively shrinking. In 1883 the infantry were forced to lower the minimum height for recruits from 5ft 6 inches to 5ft 3 inches. This was because most new recruits were now coming from an urban background instead of the traditional rural background (the 1881 census showed that over three-quarters of the population now lived in towns and cities). Factors such as a lack of sunlight in urban slums (which led to rickets due to Vitamin D deficiency) had already reduced the height of young male volunteers. Lack of sunlight, however, could not have been the sole critical factor in the next height reduction, a mere 18 years later. By this time, clean air legislation had markedly improved urban sunlight levels; but unfortunately, the supposed ‘improvements’ in dietary intake resulting from imported foods had had time to take effect on the 16–18 year old cohort. It might be expected that the infantry would be able to raise the minimum height requirement back to 5ft. 6 inches. Instead, they were forced to reduce it still further, to a mere 5ft. British officers, who were from the middle and upper classes and not yet exposed to more than the occasional treats of canned produce, were far better fed in terms of their intake of fresh foods and were now on average a full head taller than their malnourished and sickly men. Times of famine were not extraordinarily rare. But I'd be very skeptical of the numbers you're providing. Famines where a lot of people start dying become revolutions and migrations. The Irish Potato Famine was a very exceptional famine in terms of numbers - but it wasn't that 25% of the population died, it's that 25% of the population died or left - there were about even numbers for both. The situation was also greatly worsened by the political situation, which did have major consequent political effects. Large famines are easier to track because of this. I'm extremely skeptical of your numbers in general. Certainly people always starved: urbanites and social outcasts were at higher risk. What marginal increase are you declaring a famine? Even the 'severe' famine periodicity you mention seems very hard to support among any population groups and historical periods I know about. It's probably true in periods of extreme upset, but not in normal times, and in most stable societies food surpluses were stockpiled and preserved to hedge against such things.

stcredzero 7y ago

This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine...the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. Yes, you're making a good point. Traditional societies that have lasted many generations are usually pretty good to excellent at knowing how to provide enough good food and clean water for themselves. That said, there are many people still alive who got enough food and grew up healthy, but recall always wanting to eat more as they grew up. People who are in this state are particularly affected by rewards of food. Also, I'm not sure if Celtic societies had peasants organized like those of medieval Europe. Celtic people lived in both dispersed rural environments and in cities. There was considerable trade. The common view is that people just tended to live in the community they grew up, but that people were free otherwise. Social stratification is said to have increased over time, and perhaps things would have ended up in the same place anyhow, without the Romans. The Celts also practiced slavery, like the Romans. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones. This can vary quite a bit in times of migration and transition.

User23 7y ago

This is one of the benefits of an agrarian economy. For example in the rural South during the great depression, virtually everyone was dirt poor, but almost nobody went hungry. Of course that meant eating squirrel, crow, possum, and such, plus garden vegetables.

barry-cotter 7y ago

In 1914 the U.K. had been the second richest economy in the world for over a hundred years. Nonetheless approaching a third of the male population eligible for conscription were in poor enough health that they were deemed unusable in war. The average American was a foot taller than the average Briton. The members of the House of Lords were noticeably taller than the members of the House of Commons, some of whom, presumably, had had long periods of poor nutrition in their lives. The norm was not perpetual famine but neither was the average peasant well fed except in transitory times of abundance. Normally the nobility and urban patriciate and cash rich populations like successful merchants would survive famines just fine though food would get more expensive. For the mass of the population lean years where the old, sick or young would die for lack of food would be every five years if they were lucky and about every thirty years a tenth to a third of the population would die in a famine. The unusual thing about the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s wasn’t that 1/4 of the population died; it was that that was the last time it happened. Famines were so unremarkable before the 1800s, even in Western Europe, that we often need to do archival detective work to figure out they happened. Do we see more people buried in paupers’ graves at this time? Do tree ring data suggest unusually harsh weather? Did grain prices rise? The literate classes weren’t indifferent to the suffering of those on the Malthusian margin of survival but large portions of the population dying of starvation every so often was normal.

Amezarak 7y ago
The late 1800s and early 1900s were notoriously terrible in UK and the literal shrinking and weakening of the population due to their diet is documented over time - and it was actually due to increasing trade, industrialization, and globalization. Beforehand things were much better. The expansion of available foods made things much worse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ > The fall in nutritional standards between 1880 and 1900 was so marked that the generations were visibly and progressively shrinking. In 1883 the infantry were forced to lower the minimum height for recruits from 5ft 6 inches to 5ft 3 inches. This was because most new recruits were now coming from an urban background instead of the traditional rural background (the 1881 census showed that over three-quarters of the population now lived in towns and cities). Factors such as a lack of sunlight in urban slums (which led to rickets due to Vitamin D deficiency) had already reduced the height of young male volunteers. Lack of sunlight, however, could not have been the sole critical factor in the next height reduction, a mere 18 years later. By this time, clean air legislation had markedly improved urban sunlight levels; but unfortunately, the supposed ‘improvements’ in dietary intake resulting from imported foods had had time to take effect on the 16–18 year old cohort. It might be expected that the infantry would be able to raise the minimum height requirement back to 5ft. 6 inches. Instead, they were forced to reduce it still further, to a mere 5ft. British officers, who were from the middle and upper classes and not yet exposed to more than the occasional treats of canned produce, were far better fed in terms of their intake of fresh foods and were now on average a full head taller than their malnourished and sickly men. Times of famine were not extraordinarily rare. But I'd be very skeptical of the numbers you're providing. Famines where a lot of people start dying become revolutions and migrations. The Irish Potato Famine was a very exceptional famine in terms of numbers - but it wasn't that 25% of the population died, it's that 25% of the population died or left - there were about even numbers for both. The situation was also greatly worsened by the political situation, which did have major consequent political effects. Large famines are easier to track because of this. I'm extremely skeptical of your numbers in general. Certainly people always starved: urbanites and social outcasts were at higher risk. What marginal increase are you declaring a famine? Even the 'severe' famine periodicity you mention seems very hard to support among any population groups and historical periods I know about. It's probably true in periods of extreme upset, but not in normal times, and in most stable societies food surpluses were stockpiled and preserved to hedge against such things.