3 ms·
The article posit "erratic rulers" as a possible cause for the downfall of the Roman Empire. As examples of such erratic rules it mention Claudius, Caligula and
by goto11 5y ago
The article posit "erratic rulers" as a possible cause for the downfall of the Roman Empire. As examples of such erratic rules it mention Claudius, Caligula and Nero. The problem with this theory is that the fall (if we take 476 AD as the date) happened about 400 years after these rulers.
- jcranmer 5y agoThey're only off by as long as the US or any of its antecedent colonies have been around. That's not a big deal, right?
- boomboomsubban 5y agoThe article shows that many emperors from ~0-200AD had a lead rich diet, and I'm guessing the paper stopped when it did because sources suffered during the Crisis of the Third Century. If the early emperors ate a lot of lead, it's reasonable to expect many of the later ones continued doing so, which could have played a role in the downfall.
- goto11 5y agoCouldn't you just as well conclude that lead-eating emperors lead an empire to expand and prosper for centuries?
- boomboomsubban 5y agoIt'd kinds depend on which of the 19 loved lead containing food, there was only about 70 years of conquest over that period. But I think the overall goal of that unrelated claim was just to show lead poisoning likely did happen, with other things claiming it became more wide spread.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]