How Concrete Contributed To the Downfall of the Roman Empire

concertina226 (2447056) writes "The real reason behind the downfall of the Roman Empire might not have been lead contaminating in the water, which is the most popular theory, but the use of concrete as a building material. Dr Penelope Davies, a historian with the University of Texas believes that the rise of concrete as a building material may have weakened ancient Rome's entire political system as Pompey and Julius Caesar began 'thinking like kings'. Concrete was used to build many of Rome's finest monuments, such as the Pantheon, the Colosseum and the Tabularium, which have lasted the test of time and are still standing today."

Comments

Economic reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

The Romans found out that when you build a society on the assumption of permanent growth, when you stop growing... you stop existing. And today's business leaders, who don't pay attention to history unless it makes them money, are repeating the same mistake.

Re:Economic reasons

[siddesu]

Actually, the premise that the Roman Empire fell because Julius Caesar began thinking like a king seems a bit wrong. The Empire was established after he died, after all, and lasted for hundreds of years after his death.

Re:Economic reasons

[CrimsonAvenger]

The Romans lasted from 400 BC to (arguably) 1400+ AD (given that you include the Byzantine Empire, which was what they called the eastern half of the Roman Empire after the Empire split).

If you don't want to include the Byzantines as Roman, then the Romans last from about 400 BC to 400 AD (when the Empire split).

When the USA gets a couple centuries older, we'll be HALF as old as the Romans were when they split into East and West. And one fifth as old as they were when they finally disappeared.

Note that I'm combining the Republic and Empire and East/West Empires into a single "Roman" label. Some people might think that innappropriate or misleading....

Re:Economic reasons

[Savage-Rabbit]

The Romans found out that when you build a society on the assumption of permanent growth, when you stop growing... you stop existing. And today's business leaders, who don't pay attention to history unless it makes them money, are repeating the same mistake.

For some reason people are obsessed with finding a single reason for the disintegration of the Roman empire but the truth is that there were many causes: the incompetence of emperors, the decline of the Roman military, the increasing military sophistication of the barbarian tribes, separatism among those barbarians that were absorbed, the fact that the influx of barbarians became to great for the empire to absorb, pandemics and warfare that destroyed the tax base which in turn magnified the military problems and it also caused governmental organizations and institutions to collapse, the list goes on and on. Another point is that much of the Roman world never really disappeared, it just came under new management. Although you saw urban decline in many parts of what used to be the empire a lot of Roman culture survived. A whole lot of stuff went up in flames but many of the barbarian kings that took over the various parts of the western empire often went out of their way to make sure to preserve as much as possible of the Roman governmental bureaucracy, industry, trade and educational institutions as they could. The more archaeologists research the 'dark ages' the more clear it becomes that they weren't actually as dark as we used to be taught in school.

Re:Economic reasons

[MickLinux]

I don't know that anyone thinks lead caused the downfall of the Roman Empire. I think it is attributed as 'one of many factors'. I think the more immediate cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire, was the invasion of the Huns, who conquered one germanic tribe, took their land, and promised them freedom if they would then conquer the next tribe over, for them. This triggered a cascade of refugees, of which the Vandals came to Northern Italy, starving. The Senate voted to tell them 'come halfway to Rome, stop, and we will give you humanitarian aid' [food]. They then gave the contract for the food to a senator who was expected to embezzle most of the money. He embezzled it all, and the Vandals went through the whole Roman empire looking for food, and picking up slaves who walked away from their jobs to join the Vandals. Thus, the Empire lost its labor force. After that, since it still was the crown jewel for despots, it got conquered continuously.

Kindof like Iraq, kindof like Poland, Kindof like Lithuania, kindof like what'll happen to Russia, kindof like what's happening to the US.

oh, and ---- almost forgot.

No, monuments weren't first introduced to later Rome with concrete. Nor were big buildings. Come to think of it, nor were concrete buildings. All of that long predated Rome.

Horrible article. Fine slashdot fare, if I ever saw it.

It would be better to say, "the fall of Rome was caused by the introduction of Slashdot. Polling shows that..."

Re:Economic reasons

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. Haven't read the article, but if the premise is that Julius Caesar began having a bit too regally and that lead to Rome's fall, then it was a pretty odd collapse, that had this whole three century middle period where Rome reigned supreme in most of Europe, Asia Minor and North Africa. Rome didn't even reach its greatest extent, geographically, until two centuries after Caesar's death.

There are as many theories as to why Rome fell as there are as to why WWI started. At the end of the day, it was a combination of economic collapse (in particular, the debasement of coinage), bad government, poor succession rules that meant the military played too much of a role in an Emperor's rise and fall, climactic changes in Eurasia that meant lots of angry hoards of people from the Asian Steppe began their first major incursions over the Urals, and finally, in a last ditch effort, the later Emperors cutting the empire to pieces and hiring a bunch of unreliable and upwardly mobile German mercenaries to fill out their dwindling legions.

It should also be reminded that Rome did persist for a thousand years after Romulus Augustulus was deposed in the West; in the form of the Byzantine Empire.

Re:Economic reasons

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Phantoms are chasing phantoms - with credit.

Re:Economic reasons

[jandersen]

Planned obsolescence and subscription services that didn't exist for most people 30 years ago are helping to keep things afloat

They certainly give the illusion of markets growing. In real terms, I don't think the economy is growing; we are still living in a closed ecosystem, so at some point we will hit the ceiling and experience a catastrophic breakdown, unless we learn to curb our delusions about unlimited growth. The question is only when it will happen - but there is still an absurd reluctance to even consider the question, so we don't know if it might be tomorrow or perhaps in 500 years.

Re:Economic reasons

[MightyMartian]

Roman civilization persists to this day. The Romance languages, the civil code that is dominant in Europe, Latin America, Quebec and New Orleans, even the European Union itself, I would argue is the latest attempt by the Europeans to restore the Pax Romana.

Re:Economic reasons

[afidel]

Top that with the degradation of quality in what use to be considered durable goods

I'm not buying that model. Cars, which are the second most expensive purchase after a house, are lasting longer than ever. Sure, some durable goods are lasting less time then previously, but they also cost significantly fewer hours of labor to purchase so their hours of labor to useful life ratio is probably in the same ballpark.

Re:Economic reasons

[DerekLyons]

For some reason people are obsessed with finding a single reason for the disintegration of the Roman empire

Part of it is our increasing addiction to soundbites. Part of it is finding a soundbite cause that (just by chance mind you) matches current political/philosophical bugaboos.

Re:Economic reasons

[cusco]

the civil code that is dominant in Europe, Latin America, Quebec and New Orleans

Institutionalized bribery was a Roman invention?

Re:Economic reasons

[Dcnjoe60]

Top that with the degradation of quality in what use to be considered durable goods

I'm not buying that model. Cars, which are the second most expensive purchase after a house, are lasting longer than ever. Sure, some durable goods are lasting less time then previously, but they also cost significantly fewer hours of labor to purchase so their hours of labor to useful life ratio is probably in the same ballpark.

In 1974 you could buy a decent car for $2,500. A minimum wage job at the time got you $4,160 and a professional job $10,000. Back then a good car cost 1/2 of what a minimum wage worker made and 1/4 of a professional job. Compared to today, where minimum wage gets you $15,080 and a profession job $50,000, a price of a car should be $7,500 to $12,500.

There is no doubt that cars are more "durable" than before, but it's only because, compared to wages, we are paying 2 to 3 times as much for the same product.

Re:Economic reasons

[deadweight]

I bought a BMW for $15,000 (top end of your range) with 50,000 miles on it and drove it until it had 250,000 miles at which point it died. Got $1800 for it as a parts/repair car too. So in 1974 the average POS for sale back then was about DONE at 50,000 miles and 250,000 miles was a miracle car.

Re:Economic reasons

[ruir]

I would argue Rome persists to this day, and you mail know it as a global corporation residing in a small country called the Vatican.

Re:Economic reasons

[SuricouRaven]

And the individuals bugaboos. Everyone wants to see the empire's fall as due to their own personal dislikes. Ask the libertarians, they'll blame overregulation. Ask the conservatives, they'll blame socialism. Ask the liberals, they'll blame polluted water or corruption.

You can see it in a more recent event too - the early troubles at the Jamestown colony. It's recent enough to be very well documented, but already we are seeing a number of disparate accounts circulating in popular awareness, one of which (Originating in a Fox column, now persisting as a circular email and blog post) claims that the colony was founded on a system of collective ownership and farmers didn't see any point in farming if the rest of the community would just steal their crop, so they starved to death until a panicked switch to a private-property system and free market economy brought about greatly increased production and prosperity. It's a bunch of lies with a hint of truth mixed in, Dan Brown style, and any real historian would laugh at it - but it still persists, because the myth tells people what they want to hear: A good morality tale, supporting their own particular morality.

Re:Economic reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue is the latest attempt by the Europeans to restore the Pax Romana

Don't tell the Italians (the Romans' closest descendants) that the EU is a sort of a new Roman Empire. Firstly, because they would feel insulted. Secondly, because the EU is driven by the barbarians, currently known as "germans".

Re:Economic reasons

[westlake]

For some reason people are obsessed with finding a single reason for the disintegration of the Roman empire but the truth is that there were many causes

and by Roman empire they mean the western empire.

The eastern empire survived in more or less recognizable form into the fifteenth century.

Re:Economic reasons

[gorzek]

Computers aren't regulated nearly as much as cars are, which cuts down the price a lot. That is not to say cars aren't regulated for good reason, though. Apart from emissions control (which is a significant expense), the numerous safety features required in modern cars add considerable costs. Research and design also aren't free--it costs a lot of money to design a car, certainly much more than it used to, and those costs have to be defrayed in the sales of new cars.

Of course, one could also blame unionized workers, whose pay has fared better against inflation and wage levels as a whole when held up against non-unionized workers (the vast majority of those who will be buying cars.) By that token, cars seem more expensive because, in real terms, most people's pay has stagnated or fallen.

In short, I don't think the current price of a new car is generally unjustified, considering what you get for it. Even "base" model cars have a lot of features that absolutely weren't standard 20 or 30 years ago: airbags, air conditioning, power windows and locks, CD/MP3 player, anti-lock brakes, electronic traction control, etc.

Re:Economic reasons

[HBI]

Hmm. I suppose you could say that the Pope is the actual descendant of the Pontifex Maximus due to the title being ascribed to the Pope, but in all other ways the Papacy has no relationship to the Roman Emperors and does not (and never did) claim their powers or titles. The Pontifex Maximus was entirely spiritual and imperium was quite separate from the (limited) powers of the Pontifex. It was a mostly ceremonial role in any event.

Re:Economic reasons

[jeffmeden]

Top that with the degradation of quality in what use to be considered durable goods

I'm not buying that model. Cars, which are the second most expensive purchase after a house, are lasting longer than ever. Sure, some durable goods are lasting less time then previously, but they also cost significantly fewer hours of labor to purchase so their hours of labor to useful life ratio is probably in the same ballpark.

In 1974 you could buy a decent car for $2,500. A minimum wage job at the time got you $4,160 and a professional job $10,000. Back then a good car cost 1/2 of what a minimum wage worker made and 1/4 of a professional job. Compared to today, where minimum wage gets you $15,080 and a profession job $50,000, a price of a car should be $7,500 to $12,500.

There is no doubt that cars are more "durable" than before, but it's only because, compared to wages, we are paying 2 to 3 times as much for the same product.

Those boundaries (a minimum wage job vs a professional job) have changed a lot so its a lot more meaningful to look at median household or median individual income. In those numbers, in 1970 it was $6,670 and in 2004 it was $30,513 Average car price in 1970 was $3,900.00 and today it's just over $20,000. Thats a move from 58% of annual income (another misnomer because required expenses from that income have changed so much in the past 30-40 years, food, housing, taxes, etc have all shifted) to 66% of annual income, not a huge move.

Even if you took those numbers at face value and said "cars are definitely more expensive now" you have to also look at average car age rates, which reflect how much *per year* each person is spending on having a new car (or a used car if you prefer). That number has gone up from 5.7 years in 1970 to 9.0 in 2000 and its well over 10 as of 2011. So, each car purchased is basically lasting twice as long (taking into account just the time the cars are kept, not how reliable they are) as they were "back then". Even if the cars are 10% to 25% more expensive in real dollars or income fractions or whatever, we are definitely coming out ahead thanks to improvements in reliability, serviceability and quality.

Re:Economic reasons

[Sentrion]

If you want specifics, then how about just two possible scenarios:

1. Major disruption in the supply of semiconductors. If war were to break out between China and N.Korea against S.Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, the entire world's production of semiconductors could be disrupted or shut off. Best case in such a scenario is that only critical equipment would be supplied until foundries could ramp up production in other countries. But ramping up semiconductor production isn't as quick or straight forward as hiring a few good managers, engineers, or production staff. It could take years to rebuild our semiconductor infrastructure, presuming we could afford the wait. Unlike many other technologies, this isn't one that we can throw together in a garage. The supply chain for semiconductors is incredibly complex, and given China's near domination of rare earth elements, any geopolitical standoff involving China could cause a major ripple effect across the global economy. Shortages of microchips could be weathered in the short term, but if dragged on for a year or more there could be real problems affecting any device that required a chip to function properly. These days, that's just about everything, from cars to home appliances to industrial automatic, ovens, furnaces, machine tools, etc. If our entire planet had to retool for analog controls and paper-based IT, it could lead to a long-term economic decline that could thrust us into a multi-century dark age, presuming civilization doesn't collapse entirely.

2. Peak Oil. I don't think I need to elaborate on this scenario, as it has been extensively discussed elsewhere.

More likely than not, a crisis in the supply of oil or microchips, rare earth elements, or oil could result in shortages of all three critical resources. I think that the OP's comment regarding our closed ecosystem is valid. If our population is sustainable and we are not too heavily dependent on technology or geopolitical stability, then we can weather a crisis and come through in tact. But if we are completely dependent oil, technology and a global supply chain just to feed our massive population, then we could be facing some serious trouble when the next big crisis hits. In this scenario a regional catastrophe could trigger a global catastrophe.

We still live on a physical planet and have physical needs. Just because we have a growing economy in arts and entertainment, and new apps to help us manage our social lives does not mean we do not face serious growth risks in the physical economy (ie human ecology).

Re:Economic reasons

[MightyMartian]

The closest the Papacy ever came to recreating Rome was apparently the idea being thrown around of the Pope becoming a temporal head of a renewed Roman empire, since the bulk of Western and Central Europe had been Christianized by the 8th century. In the end, Charlemagne came along, and it seemed more supportable to make him the King of the Romans.

Re:Economic reasons

[Dcnjoe60]

Those boundaries (a minimum wage job vs a professional job) have changed a lot so its a lot more meaningful to look at median household or median individual income. In those numbers, in 1970 it was $6,670 and in 2004 it was $30,513 Average car price in 1970 was $3,900.00 and today it's just over $20,000. Thats a move from 58% of annual income (another misnomer because required expenses from that income have changed so much in the past 30-40 years, food, housing, taxes, etc have all shifted) to 66% of annual income, not a huge move.

Even if you took those numbers at face value and said "cars are definitely more expensive now" you have to also look at average car age rates, which reflect how much *per year* each person is spending on having a new car (or a used car if you prefer). That number has gone up from 5.7 years in 1970 to 9.0 in 2000 and its well over 10 as of 2011. So, each car purchased is basically lasting twice as long (taking into account just the time the cars are kept, not how reliable they are) as they were "back then". Even if the cars are 10% to 25% more expensive in real dollars or income fractions or whatever, we are definitely coming out ahead thanks to improvements in reliability, serviceability and quality.

I'm not sure that is right. There is no doubt that people are holding on to cars longer, but the question is whether or not it is because they want to or can't afford to get a new one. Most likely, this is an artifact of longer financing terms. In the 1970s car loans were two years, sometimes three. Today they are five to six years. If you go to sell the car before the loan, you will be upside down (owe more on the loan than you can get for the car). As such, people hold on to the car longer.

It is true that the useful life of a vehicle is twice as long today as in the 1970s (say 200,000 miles vs 100,000), but that doesn't mean the original owner is driving it for those extra miles. One of the things that was an unintended (hopefully) consequences of the cash for clunkers is it wiped out the used car market. It isn't a coincidence that without late model used cars to hold down prices, new car prices escalated. What really happened was that the lower supply of good quality late model used cars caused those prices to rise (supply and demand) and that allowed the difference between new and used car prices to rise, too.

They could make a car for $1M that had a useful live of 1M miles. Even if it is the only car you would need to ever buy, if it cost more than you could afford, it doesn't matter how long it lasts.

Re:Economic reasons

[infinitelink]

[...] the Byzantine Empire, which was what they called the eastern half of the Roman Empire after the Empire split).

Common mistake. As it was ruled by direct succession of Emperors from Rome itself and under the same laws (though developing, of course), and much of the same society, peoples, etc., the peoples of Byzantium called their Empire...Rome. So did their eventual conquerors and the proto-states of Today's Turkey, and various languages call Greek-speaking Turks and Greeks "Rum" or "Roman". Colloquial Greek itself still calls Greek-speakers "Romeyka", meaning "Roman" since they are (or like to think of themselves as)...the descendents/escapees of Rome/its conquerors and their successors.

Re:Economic reasons

[bluefoxlucid]

Stock market is a zero-sum game (wealth transfer vehicle).

Economy is not a zero-sum game (you can definitely destroy things, so you can definitely create things).

Most people somehow think that the stock market is the economy, and that the stock market reflects actual business performance. We live in a world of ignorance and bullshit.

Re:Economic reasons

[srmalloy]

"Nal komerex, khesterex".

--- John M. Ford, The Final Reflection

Re:Economic reasons

[TheRaven64]

The (economic) problem with slavery is not that you don't know how to do anything, it's that you create an imbalance between producers and consumers. Someone using slaves can produce things more cheaply than someone using free labour, because his costs are lower. He consumes less, because his slaves are paid less. Who buys his products? Only other slave owners, so you end up with a very small market. Many of the same problems appear in a modern setting due to wage inequality.

Re:Economic reasons

[ceoyoyo]

The economy is not a zero sum game so long as there's external input. When you exhaust the external input, in the form of exploitable resources, it's a negative sum game, since there's always some unrecoverable waste.

We live on a physical planet. Unless we change that, the economy must stop growing eventually. The exponential growth we expect has to end quite soon.

Re:Economic reasons

[phorm]

And what did you pay in upkeep? Used BMW's are cheap, however - as my friend found out - parts for them (and associated shop costs) are often not.

Re:Economic reasons

[zugmeister]

Anyone who ever argues with me otherwise (oh and there are loads of idiots that do) gets redirected to dev/null.

While I happen to agree with you, I voraciously listen to NPR's intelligence squared because an intelligent debate is great to educate you on viewpoints other than your own. Maybe, for your own sake, you should reconsider?

Re:Economic reasons

[Sentrion]

The problem is that to an economist, the Second LIfe "Linden" is just as "real" as the fiat "US dollar", which is just as "real" as a gold certificate, which is just as "real" as a brick of gold, which is just a "real" as a hamburger, which is just as "real" as a tractor factory, which is just as "real" as a soybean farm.

For an economist information is an exploitable resource, as is microprocessor capacity and memory capacity. As long as more trade can take place for digital resources it will be conceivably possible to continue economic growth for a long time to come, even while a huge portion of the planet's population dies off in mass starvation.

For this reason I prefer to separate the concepts of "economy" from "physical economy" or "human ecology". What's good for the "economy" is not always good for the rest of us.

Re:Economic reasons

[Shadow of Eternity]

Democracy or even Debate does not mean that someone else's ignorance is as good as my facts. There are some things there just isn't any intelligent debate ABOUT, and even pretending to listen offers a veneer of legitimacy they simply do not deserve. Like vaccines and autism. Vaccines do not cause autism, they have not, and never will cause autism. There is no possible legitimate thing anyone could ever say that supports the idea vaccines cause autism, and merely by listening you're legitimising their bullshit more than they deserve.

Sometimes the proper response is to just tell people to sit down, shut the fuck up, and LISTEN to the facts.

Re:Economic reasons

[operagost]

Yeah, except that Jesus' name in Greek starts with an "I" and in Hebrew and Aramaic with a "Y".

Weird AC post, for sure. Every day, a new conspiracy theory.

Re:Economic reasons

[machineghost]

Sometimes the proper response is to just tell people to sit down, shut the fuck up, and LISTEN to the facts.

And who gets to decide what "the facts" are? You're very language betrays the conceit that you are somehow omniscient, because how else can you know that someone else's knowledge is "ignorance" and your's are "facts".

I too believe the anti-vaccine BS is ... well is exactly that, BS. But the moment anyone presents me with real evidence to the contrary I'll happily change my posisition, because I realize that any given human being only has a limited amount of knowledge available to them, and therefore that I must always be open to new knowledge.

Re:Economic reasons

[MightyMartian]

Sharing initials hardly makes a reasonable argument. There's a better argument for a good deal of Christ's iconography being lifted from the cult of Alexander the Great, which was very big throughout the whole Greco-Roman world at the time. I don't realy see any connection between Jesus and Julius Caesar at all.

Re:Economic reasons

[Jarik C-Bol]

The article does not exactly explain itself honestly. It just says "Concrete did it!" and leaves it at that without providing any decent argument or evidence, save for vaguely referencing a selection of public works projects enacted by various roman leaders. I think that the idea the author is trying to promote is that various roman leaders sort of got into a sort of arms race trying to procure the favor of the public through the construction various public works, like a voting hall, bridges, harbors and whatnot, all using concrete, and ran the nations economy into the ground. As I said, the problem with this hypothesis, at least in this article, is that the author does not provide anything more than an opinion, failing to back up the idea with any useful historical facts, figures or evidence.

Re:Economic reasons

[quantaman]

Personally I've always suspected Christianity played a role as well. It seemed to me that pre-Christianity religion wasn't that big a deal in Rome, when the Roman's encountered a population with a different god the Roman's basically said a) everyone had to follow the Roman state religion, and b) your god is part of the big Roman pantheon, congrats you're following the Roman state religion!

Emperor Elagabalus even got away with replacing Jupiter with his god at the top of the pantheon and marrying the head of the vestal virgins. His own grandmother eventually helped arrange his assassination due to that and many other issues, but the Romans must have been pretty relaxed in their religious attitudes to even let it go that far.

Contrast to the post Constantine Christian empire and things get very intolerant, religion suddenly seems to have a much bigger impact on the politics and empire unity seems to diminish. I think it may be a feature of monotheism vs polytheism. A monotheistic faith says there's one god with one plan and presumably one way of following, with polytheism if you want to follow a different set of ethics and beliefs just say your particular god likes it that way.

If you're ruling a massive diverse empire forcing everyone to follow an inflexible faith written in Rome is probably a bad idea. The Byzantium Empire probably latest precisely because it ruled over a much more homogeneous population (in this case the monotheism may have been an advantage).

Re:Economic reasons

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, it does. The whackadoodles who think exponential growth can go no forever like to say things like "oh, but we trade in ideas!" That's great, but it's based on an economy that deals in things like food. You can accumulate money as long as you can convince somebody what you're selling has value, but accumulating money isn't the same thing as growing an economy (even if it's often made to look that way). If you can't pull new value out of the ground, harvest it from the sun, create it by arranging atoms into useful things, or having sex, then the rest is just trading pieces of paper.

Re:Economic reasons

[MightyMartian]

The empire was having some pretty severe probls before the Edict of Milan. The divisionof the Empire, for instance, was first attempted by Diocletian, to try to reform serious administrative and political shortcomings, and he was seriously anti-Christian.

Re:Economic reasons

[gzuckier]

Maybe it's one of those "You start dying as soon as you're born" philosophical things. Or before you're born.

Look at chickens. We eat them before they're born. That's doom.

Worst article ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am now dumber having read that article. Nowhere does it explain how concrete may have caused the downfall of the Roman empire.

Re:Worst article ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pocket watches became very popular in the british empire late 1800's... by a century later the empire was a tiny vestige of it's former glory. Therefore pocket watches caused the downfall of the british empire!

Re:Worst article ever...

[Sockatume]

In fact it looks like they have it exactly backwards. What the academic actually said is that it led to the political downfall of the Republic, which was replaced by the Empire.

Re:Worst article ever...

[mattb47]

I think this is a case of the ignorant editors at IBT slapping a title on this. The text of the article doesn't claim the Roman *EMPIRE* fell because of concrete, it claims that the fall of the *REPUBLIC* was hastened by concrete.

BIG difference.
 

Re:Worst article ever...

[Tablizer]

Nowhere does it explain how concrete may have caused the downfall of the Roman empire.

In other words, we didn't get a concrete answer.
 

What a load

[Pharmboy]

...of bullshit. How this poorly written piece of crap got on Slashdot, I have no idea.

Re:What a load

[oodaloop]

How this poorly written piece of crap got on Slashdot

You must be new here.

Wow - talk about missing the point.

[JMZero]

The article says:

"One could even say that it played a significant role in bringing down the Republic."

The Roman Republic preceded the Roman Empire. The historically literate person is saying that concrete helped in the transition from the Republic - which was controlled by the senate and consuls with limited terms, to the Empire, which was ruled by a single emperor for long stretches.

Concrete helped start the Empire, not end it.

The empire wouldn't end in Rome for another 600 years. It wouldn't end in general for another 1600 or so. It lasted so long, at least partly, because of all its durable buildings and bridges.

Re:Wow - talk about missing the point.

[Rob Riggs]

The historically literate person is saying that concrete helped in the transition from the Republic ... to the Empire.

Take your fancy liberal arts trivia to some other site. We don't need your kind around here. This is "News for Nerds" -- history was an elective.

Rediculous

[dwheeler]

This referenced article is rediculous. First of all, the title says "Downfall of the Roman Empire", but Caesar FOUNDED the Roman Empire, so clearly it did not cause the empire's fall. I suspect they meant the fall of the Roman REPUBLIC, which preceded the empire. But it's still garbage. What most emperors wanted was power, not concrete buildings. The article doesn't even begin to make a connection between the two. If you want more about the history of the (Western) Roman republic and empire, listen to AWESOME "The History of Rome" podcast: http://thehistoryofrome.typepa... It's fantastic.

Re:Rediculous

[DeathToBill]

What made the concrete rediculous is the concentration of iron phosphates in the limestone used as a raw material for the concrete. At least some of this survived into the finished concrete, lending it a reddish colour, especially when it got wet. Modern concrete is prepared by a different process that effectively removes the iron phosphates, meaning modern concrete is no longer rediculous.

Honestly, get a spelling checker.

Re:Rediculous

[beheaderaswp]

Not a lot of hard evidence around to make a concrete conclusion. Were there more information it would cement my thoughts. What I see is a conglomerate of issues.

Re:Rediculous

[Sockatume]

Did you just squeeze a fun, informative fact into a gripe about spelling?

Re:Rediculous

[CanHasDIY]

Not a lot of hard evidence around to make a concrete conclusion. Were there more information it would cement my thoughts. What I see is a conglomerate of issues.

Now that's some stone-cold, solid reasoning.

Re:Rediculous

[beheaderaswp]

Admittedly, my thoughts started as somewhat liquid, but when fully formed, were solidified.

Err, no really

[Viol8]

Endless factional infighting combined with ever more rebellious provinces and incursions from surrounding regions did for the western roman empire. It managed quite nicely for hundreds of years without permanent growth - in the sense of territory - so that had nothing to do with it.

Besides, the eastern roman empire - otherwise known as Bytzantium - continued until the 15th century when the ottomans finally conquered constantinople. Thats almost 2000 years. The british empire barely managed 200, the soviets 70 and the 3rd reich about 10. Give credit where its due!

Re:Err, no really

[ShanghaiBill]

Endless factional infighting combined with ever more rebellious provinces and incursions from surrounding regions did for the western roman empire.

Sure. But one of the reasons for all that fighting and rebelliousness was stupid/insane leadership at the top, and a big reason for that was lead, which was used in pipes, cooking pots, cups and pitchers. Analysis of Roman bones has found sky high lead levels, especially among the upper classes. Rather than ONE cause, there were lots of interrelated causes.

This "concrete" theory doesn't make sense to me. The Roman Empire lasted for centuries after their major monument building years, or more than a thousand years if you include the Eastern Roman Empire. If fact, rather than asking "Why did the Roman Empire fall?" we should be asking "Why did the Roman Empire last so long?"

Re:Err, no really

[Viol8]

Better military technology and practice and the ability to bring together greater manpower than the enemy. That and the fact that once people were living under roman rule it was actually quite nice so long as you didn't do anything stupid like raise a rebellion. To build an empire you need a strong military - to keep it you need to keep the citizens well fed and well off by allowing free trade. And the romans managed both.

Re:Err, no really

[chthon]

The victors always write history. Caligula and Nero were not so crazy as is often told. However, they both were contemptuous of the Roman Senate, which is what brought them down in the end, and which is why the historic writings about them paint them in the light of craziness.

Re:Err, no really

[SteveFoerster]

Because the Mexicans were so delighted to cede Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to the U.S. in the 1840's? Besides, the phrase "manifest destiny" dates from that era, and it certainly indicates imperial ambition.

Re:Err, no really

[raketman11]

Oh yeah? What did the Romans ever do for us?

Mismatch of Subject and Article

[Sique]

The article talks about the fall of the Roman Republic, while the subject talks about the Roman Empire. The article argues that the ability to build large structures cheaply and fast enabled figures like Julius Ceasar and Pompey to bribe the population by building theatres and new harbours and a new bed for the Tiber river, thus creating work for many people. and fastly improving the infrastructure without much taxation or other means to raise the necessary funds. Normally such a process would be long, and expensive, so no single person could force it through. But with the cheap construction means thanks to the concrete, it was possible, and it convinced the population of Rome that an ongoing dictatorship might actually be useful to them, and thus they didn't revolt when the power was taken from the Senate and the tribuns and given first to dictator Caesar, then to the Triumvirate of Octavianus, Mark Antony and Lepidus, and then to Octavianus as new Emperor.

So concrete allowed to end the Republic and start the actual Roman Empire.

Re:Mismatch of Subject and Article

[MightyMartian]

I'm not sure I even buy that. The Republic had always been an unstable form of government, and I'd argue the real collapse of the Republic came about because of the expansion of Rome (remember here, Rome as a major imperial power began with the Punic Wars, over a century before Caesar's death). As Rome absorbed the Carthaginian empire, it grew very rapidly and the political structure of the Republic was never very good and dealing with this. Caesar was ultimately the symptom of the disease that had plagued the Republic for decades. If he hadn't tried to seize power, someone else would have, and let us remember that his attempt ultimately failed, but did pave the way for his nephew Octavius to push the whole way.

How charmingly simplistic

[ebno-10db]

I love the charmingly simplistic explanations of why the Western Roman Empire fell (the Eastern Empire survived for another thousand years). FTA:

The real reason behind the downfall of the Roman Empire might not have been lead contaminating in the water, which is the most popular theory

Most popular theory amongst whom? Certainly not historians. Romans had been been using lead for centuries. Why did it suddenly become a major issue? And why didn't it affect the Eastern Empire, which also used lots of lead? Now they're blaming concrete, without any real explanation. They're also confusing the Republic and the Empire, which would get you a failing grade on a HS history test (ok, probably lower grades too).

The fall of the Western Empire is an incredibly complex thing, with many causes. If you want an overview of what actual historians think, try here. If you want to post in that subreddit though, be aware that they do not tolerate Slashdot style bullshit, or the sort of crap that the usual subreddit does. They're serious, which is what makes that subreddit so good. Answers must be from somebody who really knows the subject, explanatory, and backed by references. Otherwise you will have your comment deleted, and a third offense will get you completely banned. The complete rules are here.

If you just want to shoot the breeze and engage in idle speculation and name calling, there are other history subreddits here.

Curse you

[Anonymous Coward]

You have foiled my plan to bring down the Western world through the introduction of Smart watches!

Lead in the water a "popular theory"?? WFT??

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason behind the downfall of the Roman Empire might not have been lead contaminating in the water, which is the most popular theory

As a one-time historian, I can assure you that is NOT and never has been the "most popular theory." It's one of those old fringe theories that most historians regard as little more credible than "aliens did it."

The Roman Empire "fell" for the same reasons that every other empire has peaked and eventually declined--because empires inevitably overextend; run into military, economic, and social problems; and decline. There was nothing fucking magical about it.

Several Corrections from Someone in the Field

[Colonel Korn]

Let me correct several points, some of which have already been pointed out by other posters:

1) Davies, who is an excellent scholar and shouldn't have to be associated with bizarre out of context fundamentally broken articles like the one linked from the summary, says that construction of public concrete buildings was a political tool used by Pompey and Julius in an escalating bid for political power. She points out that this was a factor in the end of the Roman REPUBLIC because Julius and later Augustus eventually collected enough power to bring about the establishment of the Roman EMPIRE. So while TFS, and indeed the terrible article in the ridiculously trashy "International Business Times," state that concrete led to the downfall of the empire, their source instead says that concrete was one of many factors that led to the FORMATION of the empire. In otherwords, TFS and TFA both state exactly the opposite of what the source stated.

2) This statement about concrete contributing to the founding of the Roman Empire has been present in high school textbooks for at least a hundred years. It's not news.

3) The real news that prompted the article is also misrepresented. French scholars recently published a paper pointing out that the level of lead in Roman drinking water wouldn't have had significant side effects. Both TFS and TFA state that the previous theory on the fall of the Roman Empire was that it was due to lead poisoning. This isn't even remotely accurate. Yes, crackpots have published claims that lead poisoning led to degenerate Romans. In no way has it ever, not even for a moment, been accepted by scholars as "the cause" of the Roman Empire's fall. There is no single cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. It wasn't an asteroid or aliens or disease - it lasted for a ridiculously long time and eventually fell apart over the course of about 1500 years. The number of scholars who believed that the Roman Empire "fell" because of lead poisoning was similar to the number of paleontologists who believe the dinosaurs died out because of Noah's flood.

It's too bad that the simple debunking of this crackpot theory in the study published by the French team was reported in the International Business Times by such an unintelligent reporter, and even worse that Slashdot picked the story up without recognizing the inaccuracies that any 8 year old with a 100 IQ would be able to detect.

A couple months ago Slashdot went through a transition. It became useless for awhile because every article was flooded with complaints about the new site design, but I think that there was a simultaneous shift toward poorer editing and lower quality story submissions. Maybe the cleverer Slashdot posters did what I have and mostly stopped paying attention. I've spent 10 years laughing at the people who post about how Slashdot declined since the good old days, but recent evidence shows that the decline is real and undoubtable. Perhaps the editors suffer from lead poisoning.

Or concrete.

Fall of the republic [Re:Economic reasons]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Actually, the premise that the Roman Empire fell because Julius Caesar began thinking like a king seems a bit wrong. The Empire was established after he died, after all, and lasted for hundreds of years after his death.

Yes, now that I look at the article more critically, the actual claim was "One could even say that it [concrete] played a significant role in bringing down the Republic."

The writer apparently confused the fall of the Roman Republic with the fall of the empire.

Re:Fall of the republic [Re:Economic reasons]

[Noah Haders]

I thought the republic fell when Marcus Aurelius joined the dark side, with Brutus as an apprentice.

You're actually not going far enough.

[emil]

I think that I remember reading in Livy that Rome was to last 1,300 years - 100 years for each eagle seen in a ceremony for Romulus. The Western empire continued for a time after the split that was sufficient to satisfy the prophesy.

Re:Ridiculous

[rssrss]

Better yet read this:

Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury with an Introduction by W.E.H. Lecky (New York: Fred de Fau and Co., 1906), in 12 vols. Vol. 1. Monday

Gibbon's classic work, still the greatest prose work in the English language IMHO, was originally published in 1776.

It is available, free of charge, at the Online Library of Liberty Website at this URL.

They have several different formats including: an HTML version converted from the original text, EBook PDF a text-based PDF created from the HTML, Facsimile PDF, an image-based PDF made from scans of the original book, and a Kindle E-book. OLL has many other classics of political theory and history available fro free downloads.

First Paragraph:

In the second century of the Christian era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour. The gentle, but powerful, influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence. The Roman senate appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the executive powers of government. During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this and of the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall: a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth.

Fall of the Republic, birth of the Empire.

[donscarletti]

The article itself quotes historians saying "One could even say that [concrete] played a significant role in bringing down the [Roman] Republic" due to concrete being used in Pompey and Caesar's civic building programs, then starts the title of the article "Downfall of the Roman Empire", which was a completely different sequence events that started centuries later.

The awkward truth of the matter here is, at the time she wrote the article, the author didn't realise that the historians quoted were describing the events that lead to the birth of the Roman Empire and not the death.

Beta led to the decline of Slashdot

[swb]

But did lead poisoning lead to beta?

Other Econoimic reasons...

[meburke]

There is a good argument that the Roman Empire succumbed to an energy crises: They couldn't get enough firewood to even keep their cookfires going. Those famous Roman Roads were hauling firewood from as far away as Northern Gaul and the Danish coast. It was expensive and not the least timely. The hills around Rome were denuded of trees, and Romans spread out. Soon there was a lack of cohesiveness in Roman Society.

Pompey and Caesar were not the only rulers to make the mistake of thinking that public works construction was equivalent to productive employment; this fallacy is prevalent even in the USA today. Infrastructure on the other hand, such as the roads and harbor, greatly increased the trade in the area.

And lastly, concrete was used in Egypt a couple thousand years earlier than it was employed in the Roman Empire.

r.e. What did the Romans ever do...

[Fubari]

A Monty Python reference for those who didn't know.
From Life of Brian; a fun movie.
The quote is from a meeting of the People's Front of Judea where "Reg" the leader rhetorically asked "What did the Romans ever do for us?" Followed by some discussion of all the things the Romans did do...
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.

beta Re:Economic reasons

[Fubari]

Leading researchers now believe the fall of Rome was caused by Slashdot Beta.

Fine slashdot fare, if I ever saw it.
It would be better to say, "the fall of Rome was caused by the introduction of Slashdot. Polling shows that..."

it didn't fall. It was abandoned.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The Romans had devised an efficient method of acquiring resources. They would invade a neighbour and take everything of value. They spread in every direction for some distance except Northeast, because Poland / Russia / Scandanavia are big places that are very cold and, at the time, filled with crazy people. They couldn't afford an army big enough to go stomp them. Over-extended, they resorted to diluting the currency. This resulted in a brutal economic depression that lasted for most of the third century. At that point, the writing was on the wall - the West had nowhere to go. The smart and rich people moved east.

It makes sense. North of Rome? Germanic crazy people. West? The Atlantic Ocean. South? A thin border on the mediterannean hard up against one giant fucking desert. North east? Britain, the north of which was inhabited by such a crazed bunch of assholes the Romans built a fucking WALL to keep them out. When Welsh tin production peaked in 320, there was no point in hanging around. East? Palestine, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, China - you know - REAL civilisations. REAL money to be made. Not these crazy Pict or Celt peasant fuckers. Societies with cities and gold and stuff.

So, once they divided Roman around 310, it was basically like pulling the plug. The place drained pretty fast. If you had any money you got the fuck out and moved east. Roman didn't fall. It's method of acquiring resources met the law of diminishing returns. Its response was typical: increase the complexity of the society. Eventually, the centre collapses under its own weight. Tainter's book "Collapse of Copmlex Societies" spells it out pretty clearly. The rest is in the records. Rome didn't fall. It was sold out and abandoned.

Re:Economics 101 [Re:Money [Re:Economic reasons]]

[bluefoxlucid]

If you own a stock, you own a fractional share of a corporation. If that corporation makes a profit, you own a share of that profit. This manifests, in the simplest case, as a dividend.

Oh, you're right. Basically all stocks pay dividends, and stocks which pay dividends aren't discounted in value by the value of the dividend. It's not like the spot price of a stock rises subtly as it approaches dividend ex date and then drops suddenly after the ex date.

And of course that money comes out of nowhere. It's not injected into the SECURITIES MARKET from other sources like company earnings. The company is doing well, and money just magically manifests due to the Jewon particles colliding with the energy of excitement of a well-performing company with high earnings, and money manifests in the securities market and precipitates out to share holders. It's not like it stats in the company coffers as earnings and is transferred to shareholders.

Exactly. An example of non-zero sum.

Wrong. You own a block of shit you paid $30,000 for. Your $30,000 is now someone else's cash holding. Your $30,000 has gone into the market; you just lost your ability to extract that $30,000 back out. Your $30,000 doesn't evaporate.

The warehouse now burns down, and all its contents. (It is not insured). The value of the corporation (and its stock) is now zero. The value changed from non-zero to zero. Clearly, this is an example of a negative-sum situation. (A negative sum is, of course, not a zero sum).

Why?

You started with some money ($10,000). You paid $10,000 for 100 shares of Hardwood Corp. James now has $10,000, you now have $0. Your shares of Hardwood Corp. become worth $0, but James still has $10,000 and goes on to buy Java Corp shares from Marcus. There's still $10,000 floating around.

Meanwhile James' Java Corp shares become worth twice as much. He sells them to Marcus for $20,000. Marcus... can't buy them. He only has $10,000.

Marcus goes to his bank account, and deposits -$10,000 into the bank (withdraws $10,000). He comes back to the Exchange and deposits $10,000 into the exchange. He then buys your $20,000 of Java Corp. Marcus' external assets are changed -$10,000, while the balance of cash in the market is now +$10,000, totaling $0. As the balance of cash was $10,000 from the money you put into the market earlier, the sum total of money in the market is $20,000.

At this point, $20,000 has gone into the market, and the market has $20,000. Java Corp pays a dividend of $500, making Java Corp's corporate bank accounts -$500 and making the market now hold $20,500. Total $20,500 has gone into the market, and it now holds $20,500.

If we keep looking at the money flowing in and the money flowing out--Marcus sells half his shares, James pays him $10,000, Marcus puts $10,500 into the bank, the market now has $10,000 in play--we see that James has $10,000 from you, Marcus has $10,000 from James which is now in the bank, and Marcus also has $500 from Java Corp dividends which were SUBTRACTED from Java Corp's corporate bank accounts and ADDED to the market.

That's zero-sum.

Contrast this to general economic advancement. In the economy, I may spend $10,000 on labor to make 500 shirts, costing $20 of labor per shirt. Now, I may expend $50,000 of research and development and $20,000 of manufacture to build sewing machines. For that $70,000, I can now expend $980 of labor and $20 of machine cost and maintenance (amortized over the machine's lifetime) to make $500 shirts. The $50,000 doesn't recur (unless I develop a new machine), and the $20,000 is part of the cost and maintenance over lifetime. So now it costs me $2 per shirt rather than $20 for the labor of creating a shirt.

In this scenario, I've created $18 per shirt of wealth. Once I have manufactured 2,778 shirts to meet demand for 2,778 shirts, I've broken even. Beyond that, soc