Did lead poisoning cause downfall of Roman Empire? The jury is still out(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Did lead poisoning cause downfall of Roman Empire? The jury is still out
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/did-lead-poisoning-cause-downfall-of-roman-empire-the-jury-is-still-out/
90 comments
The fall of the Roman empire interpreted as a moment has no explanation because as you point out, there was no specific moment to explain. The fall of the Roman empire interpreted as a process taking place over centuries has an explanation, and longterm factors like lead poisoning fit the bill.
[deleted]
Perhaps a more fitting replacement for 'fall' is "failure to rise".
The Roman empire had plenty of places to expand to (much of Africa, all of Russia/Asia). Yet they didn't manage that.
The Roman empire had plenty of places to expand to (much of Africa, all of Russia/Asia). Yet they didn't manage that.
It controlled most all the resource-producing regions of Africa north of the Sahara. Russia and Germania were densely wooded or covered in plains, in either case sparsely populated and not of substantial interest to a rich Mediterranean power. Persia was the only viable region of expansion, but after Trajan’s inability to incorporate them, the effort seems to have been abandoned
Persia (current Iran) itself was an empire with similar ambitions to incorporate at least the eastern parts of the Roman empire. Too sad that the two most progressive systems of governance in history were in war for around a thousand years, possibly leading to the fall of both.
I’m dubious that this is the explanation, it’s too simple and too neat. Real life is messy and complex and usually defies simple explanations.
This explanation also strips agency from the various peoples who made their own decisions to setup autonomous Roman style rule, throw off Roman rule, or peel off Roman territory and traditions for their own pre-existing polity.
This explanation also strips agency from the various peoples who made their own decisions to setup autonomous Roman style rule, throw off Roman rule, or peel off Roman territory and traditions for their own pre-existing polity.
You know what also strips agency from people making their own decisions?
Toxic heavy metal poisoning.
Toxic heavy metal poisoning.
To some degree, yes. But this telling still has (as a sibling comment put it) an implicit assumption that the empire was good and stable, and the only thing that matters was the lead poisoning of the elites.
That might be splitting hairs. It was probably a multiple of factors, but lead poisoining, if it occurred on a mass scale, undoubtedly had a big part to do with it.
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.
As you point out, a whole lot of the Empire's subjects had a very different take on the matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rome had already been sacked in 410.
16-year old emperor Romulus Augustulus was deposed, but his life was spared which is a better fate than Vercingetorix received at the hands of Caesar.
Odoacer installed himself as ruler and the seat of power moved to Ravenna. So basically all vestiges of Roman rule ended.
16-year old emperor Romulus Augustulus was deposed, but his life was spared which is a better fate than Vercingetorix received at the hands of Caesar.
Odoacer installed himself as ruler and the seat of power moved to Ravenna. So basically all vestiges of Roman rule ended.
By 476, Rome hadn't been the primary capital of the Western empire for almost 200 years. Diocletian moved the capital of the Western Augustus from Rome to Milan in 286[1]. The Capital then moved from Milan to Ravenna in 402, where it remained until Odoacer "reunited" the Western and Eastern empires. The Roman Senate long outlasted the Western Emperor, existing at least until 603.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy#Regions_and_capitals
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy#Regions_and_capitals
The Ottomans, in holding together a multi-ethnic, multi-religous empire, frankly did something that seems more Roman than what the Byzantines did.
Perhaps it fell in the 4th century, perhaps it fell in 1922.
Perhaps it fell in the 4th century, perhaps it fell in 1922.
Perhaps it fell in 1806 when the HRE was dissolved.
But it wasn’t too long after then that Germany put the gang back together, later teaming up with the ottomans to have another crack at taking over the world.
Was the fall of the Third Reich final chapter of the Roman Empire?
Because it wasn’t too long after that event that another pan-European empire… sorry I mean Union emerged, politically dominated by the Holy Roman Empire… sorry I mean Germany.
But it wasn’t too long after then that Germany put the gang back together, later teaming up with the ottomans to have another crack at taking over the world.
Was the fall of the Third Reich final chapter of the Roman Empire?
Because it wasn’t too long after that event that another pan-European empire… sorry I mean Union emerged, politically dominated by the Holy Roman Empire… sorry I mean Germany.
Geographically at least that's more an extension of the Persian empire than Rome.
I disagree. Yes, Mesopotamia was usually controlled by the Parthians or Sassanids, but everywhere else was squarely Roman sphere of influence. And they never controlled Persia proper. That would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Iran. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_empires for a fairly stable rough division of geography both before and after they period too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_antiquity I should say 3rd not 4th.
> The traditional answer of 476 is interesting for things that didn't happen in 476
I think you are focusing too much on what happened inside Italy. Yes, the state in the location continued on without much change. But the Empire was over, no longer were Roman legions wandering all over Western Europe, and had been receding for the previous century.
I think you are focusing too much on what happened inside Italy. Yes, the state in the location continued on without much change. But the Empire was over, no longer were Roman legions wandering all over Western Europe, and had been receding for the previous century.
[deleted]
I've heard it said that Roman empire finally ended in 1283 with the Norman conquest of Gwynedd, since that would mark the end of the period of uninterrupted Roman rule (assuming one believes that the rule of the Welsh princes descended from Roman rule in Britain nearly a millennium earlier).
The reality is that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire wasn't a sharply defined event and more of a process that took an awfully long time. The idea that lead poisoning contributed to that process is an interesting one but I'm not sure that the article answers any questions about that.
The reality is that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire wasn't a sharply defined event and more of a process that took an awfully long time. The idea that lead poisoning contributed to that process is an interesting one but I'm not sure that the article answers any questions about that.
I like to think 363, the end of the rule of Julian, the last pagan emperor or Rome, and winner of the last real military victories of the Western Empire. But I make no claims of objectivity here.
I've always thought about the fall of an empire as the moment the bureaucratic wheels seize to function and the shared cultural values fall apart.
If a new war lord storms in but just sets themselves on the throne with the machinery in place the empire staggers on culturally and bureaucratically.
A mongol like situation and the whole structure and culture is shattered.
Rome in 476 I think had a broken bureaucratic system and shattered culture.
The Byzantines kept that stuff in place until the final fall of Constantinople.
If a new war lord storms in but just sets themselves on the throne with the machinery in place the empire staggers on culturally and bureaucratically.
A mongol like situation and the whole structure and culture is shattered.
Rome in 476 I think had a broken bureaucratic system and shattered culture.
The Byzantines kept that stuff in place until the final fall of Constantinople.
> wheels seize to function
It's 'cease' but I can't imagine a more appropriate use of seize, as it's a wheel/gears metaphor!
It's 'cease' but I can't imagine a more appropriate use of seize, as it's a wheel/gears metaphor!
The dangers of typing on an iphone SE :)
> A mongol like situation and the whole structure and culture is shattered.
The Mongols were more of the putting-themselves-on-the-top type of invader. Almost all conquerors are. (Though it's true that wasn't the Mongols' original intent -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yel%C3%BC_Chucai )
Where did they insert their own culture in the place of their subjects'?
The Mongols were more of the putting-themselves-on-the-top type of invader. Almost all conquerors are. (Though it's true that wasn't the Mongols' original intent -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yel%C3%BC_Chucai )
Where did they insert their own culture in the place of their subjects'?
Why not 1806, when the Holy Roman Empire, considered by many in the middle ages to be the legal successor of the Roman Empire, was dissolved?
Because, though they claimed that, we see little sense in which they were in fact the "legal successor" of the Roman Empire.
For those who'd like to know more, play Europa Universalis 4, it starts in 1444 and you can play all of the abovementioned states.
Not recommended for beginners though (except the Ottomans).
Not recommended for beginners though (except the Ottomans).
Why did cultural and technological development seem to subside after 476?
What makes you think it subsided after 476 and not, say, 235?
I'm not an expert in Late Antiquity, but it should be recalled that when most people think of Rome and Roman innovations, we usually harken back to Classical Rome, that of say from 200 BC to 100 or so. If you think about Roman political figures you know, or Roman escapades you remember, or Roman authors you read, chances are you're going back to that time.
Of course, there is one very, very, very major cultural institution after the Crisis of the Third Century that Rome bequeathed to the world. But many--perhaps most--people would stridently object to considering it Roman. I am of course talking about Christianity.
I'm not an expert in Late Antiquity, but it should be recalled that when most people think of Rome and Roman innovations, we usually harken back to Classical Rome, that of say from 200 BC to 100 or so. If you think about Roman political figures you know, or Roman escapades you remember, or Roman authors you read, chances are you're going back to that time.
Of course, there is one very, very, very major cultural institution after the Crisis of the Third Century that Rome bequeathed to the world. But many--perhaps most--people would stridently object to considering it Roman. I am of course talking about Christianity.
> there is one very, very, very major cultural institution after the Crisis of the Third Century that Rome bequeathed to the world. But many--perhaps most--people would stridently object to considering it Roman. I am of course talking about Christianity.
You mean Roman Catholicism, the organisation both named after and headquartered in Rome?
You mean Roman Catholicism, the organisation both named after and headquartered in Rome?
Augustine was one of its foremost practitioners and was fully inculcated in Roman culture. His writing is as good as anything produced during the classical era. The Confessions are one of the most significant texts in all of Latin literature.
If we see Christianity as a shift in focus rather than a break, that pushes the “downfall” back to 400 AD or later at the least.
If we see Christianity as a shift in focus rather than a break, that pushes the “downfall” back to 400 AD or later at the least.
If I might insert an almost entirely unrelated tidbit. In 49 BC Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, trespassing the legal limit on his ruling territory, and marking in some sense the start of his conquest of the known world. Hence the terms "crossing the Rubicon" and Caesar's famous saying "The die has been cast".
Fast forward to modern times, and people in the area of Romagna, near Ravenna, Rimini, and Cesena, had long claimed with no evidence that a polluted little creek in the region was the actual Rubicon: though its specific identification had long been lost to time. Nonetheless they named it "Il Rubicone". The mouth of the river opens directly south of Cesenatico, a beach town on the Adriatic and the family home of my in-laws. See the bust of Caesar on this bridge over the mouth:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.166995,12.440708,3a,75y,274....
Now Italians are famous for unnecessarily goosing local legends to make their neighborhoods more historically important than they are. (For example though Leonardo da Vinci did draw a small survey of Cesenatico's historic canal -- not related to the Rubicon -- for the Borgia Popes, that's not enough for the locals: the town has a local plaque saying he created the canal despite the fact that it preexisted him by hundreds of years.) But as it so happens, historical research culminating in the late '90s has verified the river's legend: the creek is in fact the actual Rubicon. In Italy, folk history goes way way back.
Fast forward to modern times, and people in the area of Romagna, near Ravenna, Rimini, and Cesena, had long claimed with no evidence that a polluted little creek in the region was the actual Rubicon: though its specific identification had long been lost to time. Nonetheless they named it "Il Rubicone". The mouth of the river opens directly south of Cesenatico, a beach town on the Adriatic and the family home of my in-laws. See the bust of Caesar on this bridge over the mouth:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.166995,12.440708,3a,75y,274....
Now Italians are famous for unnecessarily goosing local legends to make their neighborhoods more historically important than they are. (For example though Leonardo da Vinci did draw a small survey of Cesenatico's historic canal -- not related to the Rubicon -- for the Borgia Popes, that's not enough for the locals: the town has a local plaque saying he created the canal despite the fact that it preexisted him by hundreds of years.) But as it so happens, historical research culminating in the late '90s has verified the river's legend: the creek is in fact the actual Rubicon. In Italy, folk history goes way way back.
It sure does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemnos#Modern_period
> On 8 October 1912, during the First Balkan War, Lemnos became part of Greece. The Greek navy under Rear Admiral Pavlos Kountouriotis took it over without any casualties from the occupying Turkish Ottoman garrison, who were returned to Anatolia. Peter Charanis, born on the island in 1908 and later a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University recounts when the island was occupied and Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. "What are you looking at?" one of them asked. "At Hellenes," the children replied. "Are you not Hellenes yourselves?" a soldier retorted. "No, we are Romans." the children replied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemnos#Modern_period
> On 8 October 1912, during the First Balkan War, Lemnos became part of Greece. The Greek navy under Rear Admiral Pavlos Kountouriotis took it over without any casualties from the occupying Turkish Ottoman garrison, who were returned to Anatolia. Peter Charanis, born on the island in 1908 and later a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University recounts when the island was occupied and Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. "What are you looking at?" one of them asked. "At Hellenes," the children replied. "Are you not Hellenes yourselves?" a soldier retorted. "No, we are Romans." the children replied.
random diversion, but in the US at least, Jeep Wranglers come in a Rubicon version, with that word printed prominently on the hood/bonnet.
It's supposedly the commonly purchased trim level because it costs more, so Rubicon the word is used for wealth ostentation.
I've made a sport (a demented sport admittedly) out of asking folks with them what "Rubicon" means. I've not yet found a correct answer.
It's supposedly the commonly purchased trim level because it costs more, so Rubicon the word is used for wealth ostentation.
I've made a sport (a demented sport admittedly) out of asking folks with them what "Rubicon" means. I've not yet found a correct answer.
> I've made a sport (a demented sport admittedly) out of asking folks with them what "Rubicon" means. I've not yet found a correct answer.
Did any of the "incorrect" answers include "it's named after an off-roading trail"? Because it's named after an off-roading trail used by Jeep as a testing/proving ground[0].
Most of their trail rated / trailhawk models contain some sort of nod to off roading trails. E.g., their "Renegade" contains maps of popular trails embossed into various bits of plastic.[1]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon_Trail
[1] https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/06/jeep-renegade-ea...
Did any of the "incorrect" answers include "it's named after an off-roading trail"? Because it's named after an off-roading trail used by Jeep as a testing/proving ground[0].
Most of their trail rated / trailhawk models contain some sort of nod to off roading trails. E.g., their "Renegade" contains maps of popular trails embossed into various bits of plastic.[1]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon_Trail
[1] https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/06/jeep-renegade-ea...
Never got that answer either. It's kinda interesting. and thanks for explaining that more modern use, as i'd not seen it myself, despite having had a Jeep and living not far from there for years, but not being an off roading sort in a vehicle other than a mountain bike.
Rubicon is also a reference to the Rubicon trial, a popular 4x4 trial running from Sacramento to Lake Tahoe. The trial was named in 1840, and may itself be a reference to caesar's crossing.
https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Rubicon/pages/Rubicon_Trail...
https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Rubicon/pages/Rubicon_Trail...
very cool...had not known that modern trail, and lived not far from it for years. thank you
on a jeep it refers to the fact that the particular trim level is able to successfully navigate the famous rubicon trail - a offroading trail. no wonder people are confused by your question
thanks for citing it: i hadn't known of it, and we had a 2014 Jeep Cherokee and had driven from Tahoe to the Bay Area before, ignorant of the more current use of the name!
Pretty sure the Jeeps are named after the Rubicon Trail in California. Why it's called that, I have no idea.
Thanks for citing that, as we had a modern Jeep Cherokee and didn't know that trail, despite having driven right by there before.
The article posit "erratic rulers" as a possible cause for the downfall of the Roman Empire. As examples of such erratic rules it mention Claudius, Caligula and Nero. The problem with this theory is that the fall (if we take 476 AD as the date) happened about 400 years after these rulers.
The article shows that many emperors from ~0-200AD had a lead rich diet, and I'm guessing the paper stopped when it did because sources suffered during the Crisis of the Third Century.
If the early emperors ate a lot of lead, it's reasonable to expect many of the later ones continued doing so, which could have played a role in the downfall.
If the early emperors ate a lot of lead, it's reasonable to expect many of the later ones continued doing so, which could have played a role in the downfall.
Couldn't you just as well conclude that lead-eating emperors lead an empire to expand and prosper for centuries?
It'd kinds depend on which of the 19 loved lead containing food, there was only about 70 years of conquest over that period. But I think the overall goal of that unrelated claim was just to show lead poisoning likely did happen, with other things claiming it became more wide spread.
They're only off by as long as the US or any of its antecedent colonies have been around. That's not a big deal, right?
[deleted]
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire was very likely caused by a combination of factors. The article makes a reasonable case that lead poisoning could be one of them.
Yep. Another plausible cause that doesn't get as much traction is climate change - particularly, the cooling period during the second and third centuries that may have contributed to the fall of the Han dynasty and the Roman crisis of the third century.
Although Rome, China, and (not mentioned earlier) Perisa managed to reconstitute themselves, the subsequent decline in trade both within and across empires had to have had an effect (although to what extent, I'm sure others on here know more about it tham I do).
Although Rome, China, and (not mentioned earlier) Perisa managed to reconstitute themselves, the subsequent decline in trade both within and across empires had to have had an effect (although to what extent, I'm sure others on here know more about it tham I do).
This sounds super interesting. Could you share some resources to read up on this?
I think you can certainly google most of it. But certainly the combination of climatic change and the bubonic plague certainly helped bring down the plans of the Emperor Justinian to reunite the Empire. An excellent resource is the Fall of Rome Podcast. Most historians will agree that no one reason alone caused the Empire to fall, rather it's a combination of factors that together brought it down.
210 Reasons for decline of Roman Empire: https://courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME%20250/21...
I guess that strengthens the case for #121 (for now).
I guess that strengthens the case for #121 (for now).
One of the more compelling factors I've heard of for the fall of the Roman Empire is their tax system for agricultural land. Essentially it's a per-acre tax regardless of the productivity and ease of access, with the obvious problem of marginal land getting abandoned because the tax wasn't worth paying.
I read that a lot of the invading tribes were treated as liberators from the Romans for that very reason. Malthus was in full force in the era, so you had edge-of-starvation villages next to productive land that could be cultivated but wasn't due to taxes, and the barbarians rolling in meant you could do that now.
I read that a lot of the invading tribes were treated as liberators from the Romans for that very reason. Malthus was in full force in the era, so you had edge-of-starvation villages next to productive land that could be cultivated but wasn't due to taxes, and the barbarians rolling in meant you could do that now.
Whether it caused the downfall of the Roman Empire or not, is lead poisoining (used for water pipes and cooking vessels) the oldest example of technical debt?
Edit: just realized technical debt is a software engineering term. I still think it's a great analogy for how large unmaintained codebases rot over time.
Edit: just realized technical debt is a software engineering term. I still think it's a great analogy for how large unmaintained codebases rot over time.
The Romans also used Lead as a sweetener, and that arguably contributed more towards the lead intake than the pipes and cooking vessels. Those last two things certainly contributed, but the direct use of Lead as a food additive was way worse and often overlooked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_acetate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_acetate
My understanding is that this is a much bigger issue, because the leaded pipes would calcify naturally, forming a barrier coating between the lead and water
The article you linked says this:
> The ancient Romans, who had few sweeteners besides honey, would boil must (grape juice) in lead pots to produce a reduced sugar syrup called defrutum, concentrated again into sapa
But the article about defrutum adds more context:
> However, the use of leaden cookware, though popular, was not the general standard of use. Copper cookware was used far more generally and no indication exists as to how often sapa was added or in what quantity. There is not, however, scholarly agreement on the circumstances and quantity of lead in these ancient Roman condiments.
> The ancient Romans, who had few sweeteners besides honey, would boil must (grape juice) in lead pots to produce a reduced sugar syrup called defrutum, concentrated again into sapa
But the article about defrutum adds more context:
> However, the use of leaden cookware, though popular, was not the general standard of use. Copper cookware was used far more generally and no indication exists as to how often sapa was added or in what quantity. There is not, however, scholarly agreement on the circumstances and quantity of lead in these ancient Roman condiments.
True, and I included 'arguably'. There isn't a consensus on this and I admit my perspective only casual.
Is it technical debt if you don’t know, much less understand the problem?
Good question.
Romans studied lead poisoning to some extent. Their word for lead poisoning was saturnism [1]. Which makes me think they either didn't know any better, or they found out so late that they could not afford to replace their lead with a safer material.
[1] https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic...
Romans studied lead poisoning to some extent. Their word for lead poisoning was saturnism [1]. Which makes me think they either didn't know any better, or they found out so late that they could not afford to replace their lead with a safer material.
[1] https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic...
> Romans studied lead poisoning to some extent. Their word for lead poisoning was saturnism[1]
The linked article, surprisingly, doesn't seem to give any support at all for either of those statements.
The linked article, surprisingly, doesn't seem to give any support at all for either of those statements.
Here's another one that focuses a bit more on Rome: https://culturacolectiva.com/history/plumbism-disease-that-m...
> Known as plumbism (or saturnism in Latin as a reference both to lead and plumb, but also to the god Saturn known to be mentally unbalanced and aggressive), this was a very well-known disease by ancient alchemists though it wasn’t really attributed to Roman emperors.
> Known as plumbism (or saturnism in Latin as a reference both to lead and plumb, but also to the god Saturn known to be mentally unbalanced and aggressive), this was a very well-known disease by ancient alchemists though it wasn’t really attributed to Roman emperors.
Interesting considering the world currently has a plastics poisoning problem
It makes you wonder what hidden public health problems are impacting us and will only be understood centuries later. Will endocrine disruptor chemicals like phthalates cause the downfall of the American empire? The jury is still out.
Shitty healthcare systems, but they're not exactly hidden. People just choose to ignore how bad they really are.
Healthcare makes only a marginal difference. The Roman Empire managed to last for centuries with no healthcare "system" at all. Public sanitation, and access to safe food and water, are far more important than quality of health care.
I feel like we're already seeing the effects of chemicals like lead now. How many older people are suddenly radical Trump or QAnon supporters?
[deleted]
I thought it was the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople?
I think it's pretty well understood that the Western Roman Empire towards its end was plagued by pandemics, in-fighting, self-interest and loss of centralized control, and the pressures of migrating peoples due to climate change. The weakening of the Imperial power coincided with the rise of the power of the Christian church supplanting the anemic WRE state.
That’s the trouble with the lead-poisoning theory, it’s one of those things where you can describe all the issues as the net result of poison.
The rise of the church always interests me in this story. As I understand it, Christianity was a kind of rebellious liberalizing movement which the state ultimately tried to coopt (Constantine). It’s pre-state adoption was a movement away from more brutal practices, such as crucifixion. Eventually it developed into a competing power structure.
The rise of the church always interests me in this story. As I understand it, Christianity was a kind of rebellious liberalizing movement which the state ultimately tried to coopt (Constantine). It’s pre-state adoption was a movement away from more brutal practices, such as crucifixion. Eventually it developed into a competing power structure.
Ottomans reuniting the eastern Mediterranean thereafter doesn't feel like a fall.
Mehmed II did declare himself Kayser-i Rum after taking Constantinople so perhaps you're right.
Zevis(4)
No. It was complacency.
The traditional answer of 476 is interesting for things that didn't happen in 476:
* The capital of the Roman Empire wasn't sacked, nor was the capital of the Western Roman Empire sacked.
* The last claimant of Augustus of the Western Roman Empire wasn't killed. (Although the imperial court in the Eastern Roman Empire didn't recognize his claim).
* No vestiges of Roman rule, such as the Roman Senate, ended.
* Contemporary political discussions didn't feel that a major event or break in history had happened.
* Archaeological evidence doesn't point to a major break in the economic conditions or the material record of the era (that would come later, with the Plague of Justinian).
Of course, many pedants will come out saying that the Roman Empire really fell in 1453, because that it is when the Ottomans sacked Constantinople. But again, why 1453?
* Why not 1204, when the Latin Empire sacked Constantinople and ruled from there for 60 years?
* Why not 1461, when the Empire of Trebizond (another rump state of the Byzantine Empire created by the sack in 1204) fell to the Ottomans?
* Or indeed, why not 1475, when the Principality of Theodoro, itself the rump state of the Empire of Trebizond, also gave in to the Ottomans?
* Or 1460, when the Despotate of Morea--the last part of the Byzantine Empire supposedly conquered by the Ottomans--was disestablished as a tributary state by the Ottomans?
* Indeed, it's worth pointing that the last Byzantine Empire had to have his accession to the throne confirmed by the Ottoman Emperor of the time (Murad II)--the Byzantine Empire by the 1440s was itself basically an unruly tributary state of the Ottoman Empire.
So going back to the article's question, if lead poisoning is supposedly one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, which fall of which Roman Empire are they talking about, and why didn't it contribute to the not-falling of the contemporary not-exactly-the-Roman-Empires running about?