6 ms·

Implicit in the hypothesis, it seems to me, is the idea that the Roman Empire was the good and proper state of affairs, which its administrators could and shoul

Implicit in the hypothesis, it seems to me, is the idea that the Roman Empire was the good and proper state of affairs, which its administrators could and should have maintained in perpetuity, if not for having had their brains pickled by lead. As you point out, a whole lot of the Empire's subjects had a very different take on the matter.

whatshisface 5y ago
The fact that quality of life improved for the average person after Rome fell, and the fact that the average person probably knew that would happen, is likely to have contributed to the fall.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Wasn't there a major regression in the quality of craftsmanship, the size of urban settlements and the volume of commercial trade, after the Roman Empire collapsed? On the other hand, from what I understand, there is some evidence that there was a significant pick up in the rate of technological innovation after the fall of Rome. Not sure how that stacks up against the technologies lost in the early Middle Ages.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Yes, but most of those were made by slave labor. The drop off in state capacity also made it impossible for the state to afford large armies for war, which further improved the quality of life for the average citizen. The focus on the decline of public works and art is fundamentally an elite view, since they were never coerced to labor for them or die in the fields protecting the empire. For the common man the empire was much worse, but the common man doesn’t write the history books.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      I think it's very useful to consider the ways in which a drop in state capacity can benefit the common man, so I appreciate that perspective. Still, I have trouble imagining a decline in economies of scale / specialization that large scale trade brings wouldn't have harmed the quality of life of the common man.

whatshisface 5y ago

The fact that quality of life improved for the average person after Rome fell, and the fact that the average person probably knew that would happen, is likely to have contributed to the fall.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Wasn't there a major regression in the quality of craftsmanship, the size of urban settlements and the volume of commercial trade, after the Roman Empire collapsed? On the other hand, from what I understand, there is some evidence that there was a significant pick up in the rate of technological innovation after the fall of Rome. Not sure how that stacks up against the technologies lost in the early Middle Ages.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Yes, but most of those were made by slave labor. The drop off in state capacity also made it impossible for the state to afford large armies for war, which further improved the quality of life for the average citizen. The focus on the decline of public works and art is fundamentally an elite view, since they were never coerced to labor for them or die in the fields protecting the empire. For the common man the empire was much worse, but the common man doesn’t write the history books.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I think it's very useful to consider the ways in which a drop in state capacity can benefit the common man, so I appreciate that perspective. Still, I have trouble imagining a decline in economies of scale / specialization that large scale trade brings wouldn't have harmed the quality of life of the common man.