So often any of these single causal theories forget to look at timespan. Which was either decades or centuries... If system survived previously with mostly same things in place there is really no reason why such thing as lead pipes would be the cause of downfall part. By any reasonable conclusion the culprit in such case should be some disruptive innovation.<p>In the end gradual natural degradation of system is much more reasonable.
One thing I really got out of the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan is if anyone tells you there was ONE cause of the fall of Rome, they're full of crap.
Hmmm... the offending compound was lead acetate which was also used as a general sweetener, sugar substitute, and to preserve fruit/veg. So I think the scope for the influence of lead poisoning is a bit higher than suggested in the article. It's still a huge stretch to blame it for the entire downfall though ofc!
This 'lead causes the downfall of Rome' claim was always totally absurd. How anybody could take it seriously is just crazy. And of course for the majority of the population living in the Roman Empire, it didn't actually fail it continued to exist.<p>Is there even a clear indication that lead use was significantly higher in the Western empire? If anything I would expect far more lead to exist in the east.<p>In general, any analysis of 'Fall of Rome' that does not take into account the East and how id didn't Fall can be pretty much dropped instantly. It ends up that you are not really talking as a Fall, but more like a reduction in size of an empire.<p>Looking at it that way, its actually more reasonable to look at Roman history as one of continues success and then decline. One could argue that the first ~1000 years of Roman state were it consistently getting bigger and then 1000 years where it consistently gets smaller. It started out as city state with king and ended as city-state with an emperor (ie King with a different name).<p>How does lead factor into this story? As 1 of 10000s of different factors that played a role. It was likely used for a reason that made sense to people back then and the overall effect could still be positive overall effect.
It's interesting to note how many historical figures we really only know about through one or two sources, and those sources may be themselves biased.
This article argues against the fall of the roman empire being caused by <i>severe</i> lead poisoning.<p>I would argue that it was more likely caused by widespread <i>minor</i> lead poisoning. If everyone is more forgetful and learns slower, then that isn't something that will be written in history books - the people themselves will just consider that 'normal'.<p>Yet an empire of forgetful and slow-learning people won't be efficient. Every task will take more man-hours to achieve. Productivity will be lower. Accidents will happen more frequently. Crime will be higher. Strategic mistakes will be made by rulers, but will also be made by local rulers and individual families. "Should we plant corn or wheat this year?" - someone with intellect may read a book to discover the best crop or do a small scale trial, while someone with lead poisoning may just do the same as he did last year because it takes less mental effort.
Here is a counter-point[1] which finds high levels of lead toxicity in regular citizens. While this article seems to mostly be reasoning based on a literature review, the counterpoint uses analysis of roman skeletons.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/londinium-romans-blood-lead-levels-so-high-they-may-have-lowered-birth-rates/4010808.article" rel="nofollow">https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/londinium-romans-blood-l...</a>
This was the pet theory of my chemistry professor in college. Having learned more about the Roman Empire, which didn't fall so much as shrank and withdrew to the east before being conquered by the Ottomans, I can look back and say "Yeah, I bet as a chemist he'd like to believe that."
Everyone knows that the downfall of Roman Empire was cause by removal of Statue of Victory from Rome's Senate by christian zealots.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar_of_Victory#Removal" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar_of_Victory#Removal</a>
> Take Caligula as an example. We all know him as the mad emperor who supposedly once declared war on Neptune, then ordered his soldiers to attack the sea and take seashells as booty. The problem is that this story and the others like it all come from extremely late, hostile sources such as the biography Life of Caligula by Gaius Suetonius Tranquilus (lived c. 69 – after c. 122 AD) and Roman History by Kassios Dion (lived c. 155 – c. 235 AD).<p>Actually, I think Caligula was more trolling than insane. Reading about him, reminds me not so much of insanity, as if a 4chan poster was suddenly given absolute power.<p>It my view, he had the Roman Army march around collecting sea shells for the lulz.<p>Absolute power can be its own madness apart from lead.
I thought the downfall of the roman empire was the result of near constant idealogical and physical warfare, a series of plagues, and then division and getting conquered
I thought we already knew that it was because of ergotamine poisoning because they only ate rye shipped from Rome, which went foosty on the way with ergot mould?
The Mausoleum of Augustus was designed to hold the ashes of not only Augustus, but also his family/descendants. Maybe we could analyze those ashes for lead before jumping to any conclusions.
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs."