Roman rise and fall 'recorded in trees'

[Melvadius]

This is an article which probably fits best in Academia rather than Roman archaeology although it mentions the Roman period the BBC have picked up on a recent article in the journal Science which outlines the impact that changes in climate appear to have had on several ancient societies including the Roman empire with an article here

 

An extensive study of tree growth rings says there could be a link between the rise and fall of past civilisations and sudden shifts in Europe's climate.

A team of researchers based their findings on data from 9,000 wooden artifacts from the past 2,500 years.

They found that periods of warm, wet summers coincided with prosperity, while political turmoil occurred during times of climate instability.

The findings have been published online by the journal Science.

"Looking back on 2,500 years, there are examples where climate change impacted human history," co-author Ulf Buntgen, a paleoclimatologist at the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape, told the Science website.

 

[Kosmo]

The article is available on pay-per-view basis. I was curious to see if this is genuine or propaganda, but not curious enough to pay for it, especially because the last phrase of the abstract seems to point to an agenda.

[GhostOfClayton]

The article is available on pay-per-view basis.

 

Try again, Kosmo. I got at it without the need to pay.

[Kosmo]

The article is available on pay-per-view basis.

 

Try again, Kosmo. I got at it without the need to pay.

 

They would not dare ask money from the Lord of Clayton Towers but they tell me "The content you requested is not included in your personal subscription" after I joined the site for the free content.

[GhostOfClayton]

They would not dare ask money from the Lord of Clayton Towers

 

Although I'm sure the American Association for the Advancement of Science are a fine body of people (their name suggest a laudable aim, but you never know), I'm not inclined to squander the sizable OfClayton fortune on them just yet. I'd sooner let my friends have stuff for free. Therefore, Kosmo, I've PMed you with a suggestion as to how you might access the report without the need to resort to putting your hand in your pocket.

[M. Porcius Cato]

This was an interesting article, and I'm always very thrilled to see quantitative analyses of Roman history. That said, it seems like the article ignores an important insight gained from the many previous attempts to understand what caused the changes that occurred in the late Roman empire. That insight is that the variables that appear to explain change in one part of empire (e.g., the Western empire) fail to accurately predict what happens in another part of the empire (e.g., the Eastern empire).

 

So suppose the authors' theory is right: climactic change causes disease, famine and war. If so, the theory explains their observations of climactic change occurring with the Germanic migrations in Central Europe. So far, so good. But what about the rest of the empire? The theory predicts that there would be much less climactic change occurring in North Africa and the Levant, which were relatively healthy, prosperous and peaceful during this period. But that prediction seems highly unlikely to be right. In North Africa, for example, there was massive desertification and shortages of water, leading the agricultural frontiers of the empire to move back toward the coasts. Yet, the empire was fine in North Africa throughout this period of climactic change, and it only began to decline when the same Germanic people that invaded central and western Europe made it to North Africa, where they busied themselves impaling babies and butchering children (which I'm sure the authors would argue is just a rational response to climate change....)

 

The history of North Africa, then, presents a real problem for the theory. That is, given climactic change, we have an equal likelihood of experiencing disease/famine/war (like Central Europe) or continuing health/prosperity/peace (like North Africa). Framed that way, the article totally loses its Cassandra-like punch regarding modern climate change. Framed another way, however, we could observe this: given massive migrations of violent, anti-GrecoRoman foreigners, we have a much greater likelihood of experiencing disease/famine/war (like *both* Central Europe and North Africa).

 

When you look at the *whole empire*, and not just a fragment of it, you come away with a very different historical lesson. Namely, the most likely threat to civilization isn't climate change but cultural change, specifically people starting to act like those early Germanic hordes. Of course, I'm sure no one in New York, London, Madrid, and Moscow could possibly imagine that there's a group of armed fanatics who hate the Greco-Roman way of life....

 

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[Ludovicus]

In the Little Ice Age that hit Greenland in the late medieval period, the Norse settlements perished to a man and woman. On the other hand, the Greenland Eskimos have survived to the present day. According to Jared Diamond, the inability to make cultural changes sank the Norse colony. He sites the refusal of the colonists to switch from an agricultural to a hunter/gatherer society as the reason their colony disappeared during the abrupt change from warmer to colder. I agree that climate change alone can't account for the end of the Roman Empire in the West.

 

Here's his book on the disappearance of the Norse Greenland colony, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail

http://www.amazon.co...96014419&sr=1-1

Edited January 26, 2011 by Ludovicus

[agamemnus]

The instability caused by the Antonine Plague probably contributed much more than any of the climate change in that period ever could. The sheer amount of soldiers that Roman armies could field (before this) was an enormous advantage against the Germanic tribes and against the Scythians.

 

I don't really see how the Antonine plague could have been caused by climate change. (malnutrition wasn't a problem.. it was apparently caught by soldiers returning from the eastern border)

 

Many cities in that era were devastated by earthquakes (especially in North Africa), as well... earthquakes aren't caused by climate changes as far as we know.

 

Crop failure is a factor, I guess, for the Germanic tribes to resettle. But, they would never be able to do this without a weak Imperial army. The Roman Empire obliterated and/or re-settled whole tribes sometimes...

Edited January 28, 2011 by agamemnus

[caldrail]

I think we forget how closely linked we are to the ecological structures of this planet, and if you take a purely animalistic view, then societies comnform to a cultural survival of the fittest, which does fit neatly with our history as a species. Those cultures that suit circumstances and are able to fend off rivals do well, others wither or get conquered, and as Polybius noted back in 150BC or thereabouts, all things die of old age, including nation states.

 

So in that respect, the enviroment is all important. It drives humanity to expand or colonise. It forces them to consider social changes. It determines whether their population can eat and drink, or wipe them out in a natural disaster. Certainly the decision making process of society plays a part as the direct and knock-on effects become apparent, but then so it does with animals in the natural world. Does the carnivore wait for a chance to scavenge a meal, or rush in roaring and teeth barred hoping to scatter rivals away? Does the animal choose to be sneaky or aggressive? These are survival choices that determine who succeeds or not. Are we really any different?