32 ms·
That 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
by panick21_ 2y ago
That 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.