3 ms·
> there was no progress anywhere You are the only one implying that; it's just a strawperson. You may have things to add, valuable detail about the nuance. Yo
by wolverine876 3y ago
> there was no progress anywhere
You are the only one implying that; it's just a strawperson.
You may have things to add, valuable detail about the nuance. You don't need to shoot down the other person first.
> Advances in agricultural efficiency continued and perhaps even surpassed the roman era.
It's hard to reconcile the phrases in that sentence. If it continued to improve, then it would have surpassed Roman-era efficiency almost immediately and over the years would have left the Romans far behind. What is the truth here?
- guappa 3y agoIt didn't improve efficiency by much for a long time. In the end of the western roman empire there were epidemics and the population was greatly reduced. Before the plague, great amounts of land were used for crops, even if the yield was low. After the plague, they started to have cows or sheeps instead, since they needed less food. Source: avid listener of Alessandro Barbero's lectures :)