Human evolution/development

[KS55]

Did society regress after the Roman Empire? - Geographic Pedia

As a Concierge, I often find myself answering questions and providing information about various historical topics to guests. One topic that frequently comes up is the decline of the Roman Empire and its impact on society. Many people wonder if society regressed after the fall of the Roman...

www.ncesc.com

The decline of the Roman Empire did indeed lead to significant disruptions in trade, infrastructure, and governance across Europe. With the collapse of a centralized authority, many technological and organizational advancements that had been supported by the empire fell into disrepair. However, it is important to note that the idea that society went backwards after the fall of the Roman Empire is a bit of a historical misconception.

Was society essentially the same at the end as it was in the beginning? More than is popularly let on. The fall of the Roman Empire did bring about significant changes to society. One of the most notable changes was the development of a new social and political system known as feudalism. As a result of the invasions and a weak central government, strong local lords formed a strict code of behavior and allegiances which became the foundation of feudal life.

However, it is also essential to recognize that the impact of the Roman Empire on society was far from negative. Though it has been thousands of years since the Roman Empire flourished, we can still see evidence of its influence in various aspects of our lives today. From our art, architecture, technology, literature, language, and even our legal systems, the ancient Romans have left their mark on our world.

But what about Britain? Did it regress after the Romans left? Everything “regressed” after the Romans left Britain in 410 CE. The Roman Britons might have run the place tolerably well. But then the barbarian Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians showed up, beginning in the 450s. A two-century bloodbath between them and the native Britons followed. The withdrawal of the Roman forces left a power vacuum that led to the disruption of governance and infrastructure in Britain.

Additionally, the loss of a centralized authority after the fall of the Roman Empire led to increased vulnerability to invasions and raids. On the beneficial side, though, the fall of Rome paved the way for the development of new political, social, and economic structures that eventually evolved into the medieval and modern European societies. The collapse of the Roman Empire was both detrimental and transformative for society

We should ask the Italians for compensation.

 

[Palerider]

I was just wondering how throughout history humans have developed. The thing that confuses me is looking back at Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome etc. they built amazing structures roads, baths, sewers etc. but then you jump forward a thousand years or so in the dark ages say, you had mud roads and filth and disease. So it looks like we regressed? I had this conversation with I guy and he put it down to the increase of religion and frowning on any luxuries or signs of wealth. I would like to get your ideas on this.

I think the problem is 'trickle down'. Those 'with' say everything will trickle down eventually so just leave us to live our best lives whilst the rest of you catch up. Those 'without' eventually say fuck that and we will take what the 'withs' have whether they like it or not. So levelling down is the realty rather than levelling up.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Religion was 100% the cause of the Dark Ages. No new state power stepped up after the Romans and religion swooped in to idiot everything for a thousand years. It’s looking to do the same again right now.

I wouldnt say the cause. But it certaintly aggravated things a lot.

One of my theory's is that really the dark ages were caused by "a lack of gold".

The roman empire had a serious issue with inflation and the debasement of currency by the end of the empire, part a result of many gold mines in Spain running dry and Dacian gold mines being abandoned. Rome also seems to have had an issue of a trade deficit with Asia. This debasement rot started to really get strong from the 4th century AD onwards. And this caused many changes in the Roman economy, in a sense society started to "feudalise" as a result of many market transactions becoming ever harder to do, more and more payment was to be done "in kind" true a form of contract as common in the feudal era. It also caused issues for Rome as to be able to maintain the kind of professional army as it did before since they were payed with coin.

But then at the very end of the medieval era in the 15/16th century the gold and silver mines of latin America were discovered, and soon new currency would flood the European market and stimulate more market activity. There is a notable shift in that era to more professional armies and governments trying to centralize to get more monetary income and build on trade and commerce rather than rely so much on vassal contributions in kind. Before that you had a few sparse merchant republics like venice getting rich on monopolized trade routes with Asia but that was rather small scale economics compared what was to develop in the 16th century.

It wasnt the gold alone afcourse, the opening of trade routes with Asia around the cape of Africa and the acquisition of a lot of new resource production areas that provided unique goods a huge boost for international and "triangular" trade, the gold and silver just made it very easy to start doing a very high volume of monetary transactions and for the government to tax it and support public works projects and professional armies with it.