CiceroD Posted February 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 It also depends in whether the causes were managerial (Is that a word? ) or not. For instance climate problems would affect them equally, but one empire's financial policy versus another can affect their outcomes differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Apparently Gibbon also mentions the degradation of the land "Since the Age of Tiberius, the decay of Agriculture had been felt in Italy; and it was a just subject of complaint that the life of the Roman people depended on the Accidents of the wind and waves. In the division and decline of the Empire the tributary harvests of Egypt and Africa were withdrawn; the numbers of inhabitants diminished with the means of subsistance;and the country was exhausted by the irretrievable losses of war, famine, and pestilence." Now does he mean an actual loss of soil fertility or just in the number and effectiveness of farms? Rome was always an urban civilisation. The large slave-estates of the late republic/early empire had more or less put the small farmer out of business. I wonder how many country estates were given over to holiday homes as opposed working farms? Given how vital agriculture was I suspect the degradation of farming during the late empire was due to many factors. Young men are being drafted forcibly into the army, the stability and safety enjoyed by their forebears is becoming a thing of the past, the possibility of raids or foragers of either side, the loss of markets (?), never mind any enviromental issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.