Thanks for this.

Rome was a Mediterranean empire rather than a European one, and there were significant parts of northern Europe which Roman influence never reached (Scandinavia, Ireland, Poland, Russia). There are places which are on the outer periphery of the Med, but at the heart of Europe. Is it possible there were some northern places which actually got richer and more civilized as a consequence of this European reorientation - if only in the long term?

Hi Razib,

I just wanted to say that I had to add the e-mail address you see here to my spam filter. Which means somehow, some spammer got ahold of the e-mail addresses people were using to comment on your blog.

I haven't commented here in at least a year, so if you think you've solved such a problem, you probably did.

Otherwise, just thought you should know.

Is it possible there were some northern places which actually got richer and more civilized as a consequence of this European reorientation - if only in the long term?

which areas? which time span?

katie, thanks for telling me that. this comment system is run by haloscan, so i can't really do too much. if anyone is worried, i recommend them not to enter their email address.

btw, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence the "wealthiest" period in scandinavia over the interval 0-1500 was 300 to 700. archaeologists often assert this based on the relative surfeit of expensive trade items from as far away as india, and economic historians suggest that there was a lot of specie going back and forth around the caspian from west, central and south asia to northern europe. it's a nice historical correlation that the viking era coincides with the period when this plentitude was abating.

"A good cup of mead is at the same level as a Falernian."

Making mead or wine is pretty straightforward. Making *good* mead or wine is another matter entirely ... Having said that, have you *had* a good cup of mead? Do you know what it takes to make? It sounds a little like wine snobbery opposed to beer. Fine beer can require a lot of sophisticated instruments of civilization, detailed knowledge, and so on to bring it forth ...

Perhaps there's nothing like an abating plenitude to turn a young man's thoughts to rape and pillage.

Seems strange considering that 500 to 900 AD was a fairly cold period and adversely affected agriculture and pastures.

Hm. Inventing the Dark Ages? Interesting.

Seems strange considering that 500 to 900 AD was a fairly cold period and adversely affected agriculture and pastures.

it isn't strange if you think population levels are a major parameter when considering per capita wealth. e.g.,

time A (warm)
agricultural output = 1000
# of people = 1000

so, output per person = 1

time B (cold)
agricultural output = 700
# of people = 500

so, out per person = 1.4

Admittedly my studies stop around 700 AD.

But from my reading of the 600s: the Ecclesiastic History of Bede, the Ulster Chronicle, Bar Penkaye, the Life of Saint Eligius, and various Syriac chronicles are all in agreement that life as a Christian was violent, plague-ridden, and short. The plague of 664 AD in England and (maybe) France was particularly awful. And that's not even getting into the constant warfare and oppression among the Merovingians or, for that matter, Umar and Uthman and cetera.

Most of these sources I cited also mention famines. Famine is a supply / demand issue. If the balance is so precarious that a long winter can starve out a population, then the population (I would expect) should have been close to capacity even in years of plenty.

Were the Christian sources hyping the problem?

Were the Christian sources hyping the problem


two issues that spring to mind

1) the elite might have been less buffered from famine in a more decentralized world (e.g., consider the grain harvests from egypt which fed first rome, then constantinople, until the arab conquest).

2) famine is quite often an issue of distribution, dislocation and disruption.

p.s., and obviously short intense famines and epidemics which result in high mortality is not contradictory with greater average health when famines do not occur.

More a question than a comment: Fewer people living in urban environments per capita should reduce the severity of things like plagues, no? If in fact there was less urbanization, this should lead to a more healthy populace ...

More a question than a comment: Fewer people living in urban environments per capita should reduce the severity of things like plagues, no? If in fact there was less urbanization, this should lead to a more healthy populace ...

here's a thought: urban populations are economic parasites. 15% of the roman empire's population was urban.

"economic" parasites"?

What do you mean by that term? For what type fo economy?

The servies that allow for distribution, and prevent dislocation and disrpution, are usually services provided by town dwellers.

The servies that allow for distribution, and prevent dislocation and disrpution, are usually services provided by town dwellers.

yeah. but a lot of town dwellers (e.g., urban proletariat) were just hungry mouths (bread ration in both rome and constantinople). and many of the aristocrats were probably rentiers. i'm thinking that cities to more or less on the net possibly luxury goods (not sure of this, but just a thought).