3 ms·
Plenty of people starved...just not (in their better centuries) the better-off Romans. For (presumed) IQ benefits, I'd focus more on the hygiene, and the relat
by bell-cot 2y ago
Plenty of people starved...just not (in their better centuries) the better-off Romans.
For (presumed) IQ benefits, I'd focus more on the hygiene, and the relatively disease-free drinking water which all those lead pipes & lead-lined aqueducts provided. (Plus the sewers.) There were lots of nasty diseases you could catch by drinking the water in ancient cities. And at scale, "lead lowered IQ" isn't much different to "unable to think well while ill", to "higher mortality makes education a poorer investment".
- panick21_ 2y agoThat a very reductive view. Data shows that during the Roman empire, people moved on mass from hill forts into the flatlands (presumably giving better acess to agroculture, trade and water). We also see far more material culture, and not just for rich people. Huge amount of just common consumer goods, and this even streches far beyond the borders of the empire itself. Population also increased during this time.
- mistrial9 2y ago> Population also increased during this time you mean after the slaughters?
- panick21_ 2y agoYes, many places part of the empire for 100s, sometimes even 1000 years. And conquest is of course always bad. But that wasn't the point you were making. You were talking as if there was constant large scale starvation in Rome, and there for the most part wasn't. You point that only rich Roman elites didn't regularly starve isn't really true. And its certainty not true in comparison to other places in the ancient world.