5 ms·

It is similar to when the roman empire collapsed here in the UK - why didn't the local people just live in the houses the roman left? Well they couldn't afford

by ljf 3y ago

It is similar to when the roman empire collapsed here in the UK - why didn't the local people just live in the houses the roman left? Well they couldn't afford to run them for a start, and the businesses and trade that had made the areas profitable, disappeared too. I imagine for these houses that the double edge of location and risk will keep most people away. Would you move in if you didn't know if your neighbours were about to be all cows or a new factory? And what about if the nearest road ended 3 miles away?

hutzlibu 3y ago
"It is similar to when the roman empire collapsed here in the UK - why didn't the local people just live in the houses the roman left? Well they couldn't afford to run them for a start, " What kind of running cost has a stone house compared to a mud house? I rather think if roman houses were left untouched, it was rather because of a fear that the former owners would come back, because they likely did not put a sign on front, free to take. And the romans were not famous for soft punishment.
- ljf 3y ago
  Large stone houses needed numbers of servants to collect and prepare firewood to keep them warm, and required materials (and workers) no long available to maintain. Even the 'rich' kings and queens after the romans were no where near as cash rich as many of the romans that managed parts of the UK, as the population dropped significantly and slavery (while it still existed) wasn't as common as roman times. Plus we know building were used, for example as farm buildings - but it was more common for the building materials to be reused, rather than people moving into houses. I don't think they would have been too scared of the romans, as largely the lands were taken over by new groups - which the romans could not afford to keep defending against. There is a similar reason that amazing old houses lie for ages untouched in France - the cost to run and keep the is huge (and always has been) - but they no longer own the land/farms required to fund the buildings (and lives of the owners), so they sit rotting away.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "There is a similar reason that amazing old houses lie for ages untouched in France" Yeah, but here it is property laws preventing use. Otherwise there are potentially enough people in seqrch of a home. (See squatter/occupy movement) And in general I see the same pattern today: abandoned houses would get used, but cannot easily, so step by step materials of that house gets used somewhere else as that is quite safe (if a owner comes back). And warming a big stone house is a problem, but I think most people rather have one warm room and have lots of dry but cold space, rather than one warm mud hut. So it was probably lots of factors preventing a use of the old roman houses.
krisoft 3y ago
> why didn't the local people just live in the houses the roman left? There are many things suspicious with this question. Why do you think people en-mass left? Why do you think nobody lived in their houses after they left?
- ljf 3y ago
  Because of the historical record? Feel free to add some detail or opinion if you have one.

by ljf 3y ago

hutzlibu 3y ago

"It is similar to when the roman empire collapsed here in the UK - why didn't the local people just live in the houses the roman left? Well they couldn't afford to run them for a start, " What kind of running cost has a stone house compared to a mud house? I rather think if roman houses were left untouched, it was rather because of a fear that the former owners would come back, because they likely did not put a sign on front, free to take. And the romans were not famous for soft punishment.

ljf 3y ago
Large stone houses needed numbers of servants to collect and prepare firewood to keep them warm, and required materials (and workers) no long available to maintain. Even the 'rich' kings and queens after the romans were no where near as cash rich as many of the romans that managed parts of the UK, as the population dropped significantly and slavery (while it still existed) wasn't as common as roman times. Plus we know building were used, for example as farm buildings - but it was more common for the building materials to be reused, rather than people moving into houses. I don't think they would have been too scared of the romans, as largely the lands were taken over by new groups - which the romans could not afford to keep defending against. There is a similar reason that amazing old houses lie for ages untouched in France - the cost to run and keep the is huge (and always has been) - but they no longer own the land/farms required to fund the buildings (and lives of the owners), so they sit rotting away.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "There is a similar reason that amazing old houses lie for ages untouched in France" Yeah, but here it is property laws preventing use. Otherwise there are potentially enough people in seqrch of a home. (See squatter/occupy movement) And in general I see the same pattern today: abandoned houses would get used, but cannot easily, so step by step materials of that house gets used somewhere else as that is quite safe (if a owner comes back). And warming a big stone house is a problem, but I think most people rather have one warm room and have lots of dry but cold space, rather than one warm mud hut. So it was probably lots of factors preventing a use of the old roman houses.

krisoft 3y ago

> why didn't the local people just live in the houses the roman left? There are many things suspicious with this question. Why do you think people en-mass left? Why do you think nobody lived in their houses after they left?

ljf 3y ago
Because of the historical record? Feel free to add some detail or opinion if you have one.