|
I liked that people ignored every single fixed price except for the one about purple dye, since the only person who was legally allowed to buy it was Diocletian himself.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Alekanderu posted:It's such a shame that the last known copy perished in a mysterious monastery library fire in 14th century Italy. It's my understanding that the work was particularly poisonous and was being suppressed by the church.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:A history professor pointed out that if you wanted a table made, you'd pay more for the nails than the carpenter's time. Chances are the time spent by smelters, smiths, miners and mine overseers to drag that iron out of the ground and turn it into nails meant that there was more economic value baked into the nails than was baked into the rest of the finished product put together, from lumberjack to lathe. E: and if that was the thought process behind that kind of pricing that's hilarious given it was the basis of (correct me if I'm wrong) Marx's value theory of labor. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Chances are the time spent by smelters, smiths, miners and mine overseers to drag that iron out of the ground and turn it into nails meant that there was more economic value baked into the nails than was baked into the rest of the finished product put together, from lumberjack to lathe. He was making a point about how hard it is to express ancient money in modern terms, but yea, it really struck me how not having mass production changes things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Not just that though; the use of "barbarian" manpower was a big reason why Germanic tribes were allowed to come and stay within the empire itself of course, but the "core" Roman part of the army itself was also adopting a more barbarian attitude over time. BurningStone posted:it really struck me how not having mass production changes things. Can you guess what book I've been reading the past couple of days? Dave Angel posted:It's my understanding that the work was particularly poisonous and was being suppressed by the church. Amused to Death posted:Literally everything, down to different grades of stuff. If you want a sextarius of honey, it's going to run you 40 denarii at most, but the good news is second quality honey will max out at only 24 denarii! This book has an impressive list. Also, rhetoric teachers are pulling in bank compared to arthritic and shorthand teachers. Gallic and Pannonian beer are also apparently held in higher regard than Egyptian. Wolfgang Pauli fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Also check out the data in ice coring that's been tied to levels of pollution that smelting produced during the Empire. You don't see that again until the early Renaissance. No, but I'd love to hear your source  How do we know the pollution wasn't related to events elsewhere in the world? quote:Sounds consistent. Ain't no theatre in the 14th century except that which can exist at the unenforced margins of society, and what (very) little performance various local diocese agreed to subsidize.  It's a reference to the novel The Name of the Rose
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
I don't have a source in front of me so hopefully someone does, but there is huge industrial pollution recorded in ice cores from the empire. It arises and goes away with times corresponding to Rome's fortunes, and the chemical content reflects human activity, so it's pretty clearly their fault. Rome caused more manufacturing pollution than any civilization until the industrial revolution, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
How did they even cause that much air pollution from burning wood and coal alone? For what? Also, I think China must have rivaled the Roman economy in complexity and sophistication at some point before the industrial revolution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:How did they even cause that much air pollution from burning wood and coal alone? For what? Mercury released from burning coal and mining in general. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Mercury released from burning coal. They didn't burn that much coal, mostly wood. The vast majority of the pollution came from metal smelting operations. Lacking modern science, they didn't really understand things enough to be safe or efficient and just used a lot of very dirty, low-efficiency processes turned up to 11 to maximize throughput.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
I can only imagine the cloud of pollution that must've hung over Rome itself given the fact it was all hills and valleys between them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Apparently the Romans in particular really hosed up Spain with their mining and smelting. We're talking about toxic gas clouds that would kill any birds that flew through them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I can only imagine the cloud of pollution that must've hung over Rome itself given the fact it was all hills and valleys between them. I can't find the quote at the moment, but a non-Roman (an Iberian Celt?) once wrote something along the lines of "You always know when the Romans are coming by the plumes of smoke on the horizon." This was especially true in the areas of the empire that were primarily conquered for their natural resources, like Spain. The pollution of Roman proto-industry was pretty amazing, but from what I understand the sheer scale of exploitation was less in already-urbanized Mediterranean areas than the previously unexploited western provinces. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
a friend of mine does some work on core samples from the Marmara sea and she was telling me how there is a drastic change in pollen types during the rise of the different civilizations. Its amazing how drastically the environment in the Mediterranean has been changed by human interaction. Arn't most of the plants/trees found in the Bosphorus area in one way or the other cultivated/used for human consumption? I believe the only old growth forest present in the Mediterranean region is the Forest of the Cedar of Gods in Lebanon? ughhhh fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Rome also cut down a shitload of forests across Europe, which contributed to pollution both by removing the trees and subsequently burning a lot of them. Romans hated forests, plus they needed the wood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Humans have very drastically altered the ecology pretty much everywhere on earth. For example prior to the introduction of agriculture there weren't any heaths in England. They are an entirely artificial ecosystem totally dependent on man for their continued existence. Changes like this are easily observable through the analysis of pollen in lake or sea sediments. Human impact extends far beyond the densely populated regions of Europe though. For example in Panama several areas experienced extensive reforestation beginning around 1500, probably related to native population collapses caused by European contact. However these 500 year old forests are still classified as secondary regrowth, rather than primary old growth, because their flora still hasn't recovered the pre-clearance species structure or matched pre-human levels of biodiversity. I've only heard this second hand but apparently the species composition of the forest in parts of the Amazon reflect human planting and selection of useful or fruit producing trees, persisting from pre-columbian practices. Of course today the premis of ecological succession has come into question, so that Panamanian forest might never recover to its pre-human form, but that's not necessarily bad. It will just be different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
There are a lot of things like this that we think of as modern, industrial effects, but they existed in the past as well. Having an effectively unlimited labor force (either with slaves like the Romans, or bored agricultural workers like Egypt) makes many things possible that we modern people believe require machines. Machines will definitely let you cut down a forest, but a 30,000 slaves with axes does the job just as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
I remember going to the Fort Duquesne museum in Pittsburgh and it mentioned the impact of humans on the east coast of the US following colonization. Apparently the forests encountered by the first colonists on the east coast were considerably darker and more foreboding, with much more massive trees. Which isn't really how I would describe any forest I've been to after spending most of my life on the east coast. It's kind of a shame, I would have liked to have seen it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Humans have very drastically altered the ecology pretty much everywhere on earth. For example prior to the introduction of agriculture there weren't any heaths in England. They are an entirely artificial ecosystem totally dependent on man for their continued existence. Changes like this are easily observable through the analysis of pollen in lake or sea sediments. 1491 by Charles C. Mann goes more in depth about the pre-Columbian human impact on the Amazon basin as well as the Mississippi River valley and the forests of the eastern coast of North America. It seems there was a lot of manipulation of the environment to further human ends, but it was in a different style than what had happened in Europe so the Europeans who came along after the epidemics didn't recognize it as such and assumed things had always been that way. It's a good read. You should check it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:No, but I'd love to hear your source Grand Fromage posted:I don't have a source in front of me so hopefully someone does, but there is huge industrial pollution recorded in ice cores from the empire. It arises and goes away with times corresponding to Rome's fortunes, and the chemical content reflects human activity, so it's pretty clearly their fault. Rome caused more manufacturing pollution than any civilization until the industrial revolution, as far as I know. Actually, I'm curious as to what you think of Fall of Rome, Fromage. A lot of what you post about Late Antiquity is in line with it. Jazerus posted:I can't find the quote at the moment, but a non-Roman (an Iberian Celt?) once wrote something along the lines of "You always know when the Romans are coming by the plumes of smoke on the horizon." This was especially true in the areas of the empire that were primarily conquered for their natural resources, like Spain. The pollution of Roman proto-industry was pretty amazing, but from what I understand the sheer scale of exploitation was less in already-urbanized Mediterranean areas than the previously unexploited western provinces. Grand Fromage posted:Rome also cut down a shitload of forests across Europe, which contributed to pollution both by removing the trees and subsequently burning a lot of them. Romans hated forests, plus they needed the wood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Actually, I'm curious as to what you think of Fall of Rome, Fromage. A lot of what you post about Late Antiquity is in line with it. Don't think I've ever read it. I haven't done much late antiquity, really. I don't think most people realize that almost every forest you've ever seen is probably less than a couple centuries old. The reason coal mining became a big thing was largely because the US/Europe were out of trees to burn. We'd cut down everything. Europe's gone through at least three cycles of clearing the forests/reforestation. Rome, the medieval clearing, and the pre-industrial one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Mustang posted:I remember going to the Fort Duquesne museum in Pittsburgh and it mentioned the impact of humans on the east coast of the US following colonization. Apparently the forests encountered by the first colonists on the east coast were considerably darker and more foreboding, with much more massive trees. Which isn't really how I would describe any forest I've been to after spending most of my life on the east coast. A lot of places out west are still forested, with (some) old growth, even. If the west coast is too far, I'd recommend going to the Rockies, except they've had huge problems with pine beetle infestations. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Don't think I've ever read it. I haven't done much late antiquity, really. Grand Fromage posted:I don't think most people realize that almost every forest you've ever seen is probably less than a couple centuries old. The reason coal mining became a big thing was largely because the US/Europe were out of trees to burn. We'd cut down everything. Europe's gone through at least three cycles of clearing the forests/reforestation. Rome, the medieval clearing, and the pre-industrial one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Human impact extends far beyond the densely populated regions of Europe though. For example in Panama several areas experienced extensive reforestation beginning around 1500, probably related to native population collapses caused by European contact. However these 500 year old forests are still classified as secondary regrowth, rather than primary old growth, because their flora still hasn't recovered the pre-clearance species structure or matched pre-human levels of biodiversity. I've only heard this second hand but apparently the species composition of the forest in parts of the Amazon reflect human planting and selection of useful or fruit producing trees, persisting from pre-columbian practices. Indeed, as Golden Zucchini pointed out, almost all of the eastern seaboard of North America shows extensive signs of being managed by humans. I'm about 90% of the way through 1491 right now, and the accounts of British settlers encountering forests resembling English parks, and not realizing how they got there is kind of mindblowing. As is the story of corn. And just how many people were probably in the New World before Europeans happened onto the scene. Definitely read 1491*. I've heard the sequel, 1493, is also quite good, but I don't have a copy. *Not to be confused with Gavin Menzies' books, 1421 and 1434. Don't read those. Grand Fromage posted:I don't think most people realize that almost every forest you've ever seen is probably less than a couple centuries old. The reason coal mining became a big thing was largely because the US/Europe were out of trees to burn. We'd cut down everything. Europe's gone through at least three cycles of clearing the forests/reforestation. Rome, the medieval clearing, and the pre-industrial one. It's funny actually, when I flew into Frankfurt a few years back, I was amazed at how much forest cover there actually was along the Rhine. Definitely wasn't expecting much of any. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:17
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Yeah, read 'em. Not to wander too off topic but the picture you have of the Americas from European writing is really a post-apocalyptic society. The plagues killed like 90% of the population of the New World, things were very different and considerably more developed before then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
By the way GF, do you have any staple books to recommend that cover the Roman era? I've read Carthage Must Be Destroyed which comes up a lot, and Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, though I've read very little of what happenes in between there. I think I have to make an effort to read some of Peter Heather's stuff, just so I can understand what Halsall disagrees with so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:Its amazing how drastically the environment in the Mediterranean has been changed by human interaction. Arn't most of the plants/trees found in the Bosphorus area in one way or the other cultivated/used for human consumption? I believe the only old growth forest present in the Mediterranean region is the Forest of the Cedar of Gods in Lebanon? Interestingly enough the earliest copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh actually place the Forest of the Gods near Iraq. It's not until around 2000 BC that the location begins to shift and name the forests location as Lebanon, indicating that the cedars of Lebanon are but a small part of what was once a forest covering a large portion of the Middle East. Way back in 2700 BC the city of Ur already seemed to be adopting laws in an attempt to limit the amount of trees which could be felled in a single year. It shows how incredibly early humans were having major and irrevocable changes on the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions. Squalid posted:Humans have very drastically altered the ecology pretty much everywhere on earth. For example prior to the introduction of agriculture there weren't any heaths in England. They are an entirely artificial ecosystem totally dependent on man for their continued existence. Changes like this are easily observable through the analysis of pollen in lake or sea sediments. On the Aleutian islands there's evidence of basic settlements from a group with a peak population of no more than 15,000 across several of the islands. They habituated the area 8,000-10,000 years before present, lived in small earthen houses half dug into the ground and lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You can immediately tell where they lived with an aerial survey due to changes in the plant community that persist to this day. The area over the foundations for buildings is clear because of changes in height caused by the disturbed soil and pathways around villages were artificially populated by edible and medicinal plants which the people living there would want close at hand. It always blows my mind that a small group of people not even practicing agriculture could have such obvious impacts thousands of years later. It really makes you wonder what the ecological effects of our current civilization will be thousands of years from now. Wolfgang Pauli posted:Japan was almost entirely denuded by the end of the Sengoku Jidai, both because they needed wood to fuel the economy and because Japan's very limited arable land has to be shared by both forests and farmland. It took a pretty big effort on behalf of the Tokugawa Shogunate to promote forestry reform while still managing to feed everyone. (The Green Archipelago's a great book and everyone should read it.) Japanese silviculture is really impressive. It might seem really obvious that you need to stop cutting down trees if only a few are left, but there are plenty of islands in the Pacific that stand as a testament that when most humans are confronted with a barren landscape with a single tree, they will cut down that tree. Hedera Helix posted:A lot of places out west are still forested, with (some) old growth, even. If the west coast is too far, I'd recommend going to the Rockies, except they've had huge problems with pine beetle infestations. Spending time in the red wood old growth forests in Northern California will change your perspective on every other forest you visit. It exudes a physical feeling that I can best describe as primordial. To know that any given tree is old enough to predate the fall of Constantinople and that the forest itself is the last remnant of a greater forest that is older than our entire species is awe inspiring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It's funny actually, when I flew into Frankfurt a few years back, I was amazed at how much forest cover there actually was along the Rhine. Definitely wasn't expecting much of any. Well, yeah, we have a lot of forest. A lot of that is either pine or beech monocultures though and the alluvial forests are mostly cut off from their rivers. Real old growth forests are really rare in Central Europe, Bayerischer Wald or Hainich are the closest you can get to that in Germany give or take a couple centuries of regeneration. Białowieża (Poland/Belarus) is probably the only actual old growth forest, not counting the "oh well, it wasn't completely cleared so we'll call it old growth" areas, sincere there's no way Europe actually has anywhere near 60% old growth forests  .cafel posted:Interestingly enough the earliest copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh actually place the Forest of the Gods near Iraq. It's not until around 2000 BC that the location begins to shift and name the forests location as Lebanon, indicating that the cedars of Lebanon are but a small part of what was once a forest covering a large portion of the Middle East. Way back in 2700 BC the city of Ur already seemed to be adopting laws in an attempt to limit the amount of trees which could be felled in a single year. It shows how incredibly early humans were having major and irrevocable changes on the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern regions. It's also quite funny that a clear tree line in the mountains is actually not natural - in the very few mountain ranges where nobody has had cattle etc. graze in the last couple of centuries, there's actually a fuzzy area where you've got a large number of century-old shrubs of the local tree species.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 06:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:It's also quite funny that a clear tree line in the mountains is actually not natural - in the very few mountain ranges where nobody has had cattle etc. graze in the last couple of centuries, there's actually a fuzzy area where you've got a large number of century-old shrubs of the local tree species. I don't know about that. I'm very used to driving around the Canadian Rockies, and you tend to get a pretty clear treeline. I have my doubts about that being man-made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
This is the best goddamn thread. I am finding ancient historical tree chat fascinating. (edit - I've just wiki'd and found out about lots of old woods in England). I live near Thetford Forest - I am always amazed that it is not even 100 years old. haakman fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
There is still original old growth forest in Pennsylvania. A couple hundred acres at least. It looks completely different from the 1st and 2nd growth forest which covers much of the state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There is still original old growth forest in Pennsylvania. A couple hundred acres at least. It looks completely different from the 1st and 2nd growth forest which covers much of the state. Hartwick Pines in Michigan is another old growth forest remnant in Michigan, preserved from the logging that cut down nearly every tree in the state back in the 19th century. Even as they were doing it, somebody thought, "Hey, this is pretty cool. Maybe people in the future would like to see what it used to be like."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not like it's all gone but for the most part they're either in incredibly inaccessible areas, or small patches that were protected for whatever reason. It's just weird to realize how young most forests are. Like where I live in Korea, after the annexation by Japan the Japanese cut down most of the remaining forests since the forest in Japan was protected and they needed wood. But there's forest everywhere here now, which is entirely the product of intentional reforestation that was started after the Korean War. The one part that reminds you of it is that there's almost no wildlife other than birds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Sorry to break with the treechat temporarily but would you happen to know the general opinion in the field of de Ste. Croix's Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World? Are there any must-read followups or responses?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
haakman posted:This is the best goddamn thread. What? I always thought it was so old because it is so big, I have no idea why I connected size with age though. I just looked up ancient forests near me and Foxley Wood is pretty old, according to the wiki article it has parts that are over 6000 years old. How can they tell a forest is that old? GF, you said the Romans weren't keen on forests, was this to do with more military/conquest reasons or spiritual/superstious ones, or both maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Forests are spooky, especially if you're from the city. People (like legions) tend to die in dense forests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Forests are spooky, especially if you're from the city. People (like legions) tend to die in dense forests. I think the main purpose of Grimm's fairy tales was to scare the poo poo out of kids about the dangers of wandering off into the woods alone. Civilization didn't extend very far beyond the range of the family fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Forests are spooky, especially if you're from the city. People (like legions) tend to die in dense forests. Talk like this always seemed funny to me, but I guess living most of my life in cities surrounded by forests may have something to do with it. Seriously, if you live in Hannover, Germany, you can go in a random direction and suddenly, forest. My old hometown Nienburg ("New Castle") is literally surrounded by the Grinderwald, a forest that was exterminated as the industrial revolution swept through northern Germany. I was amazed to learn as a kid how the Grinderwald had to be revived during the 20th century to fill up the dusty plains left over from the old forest. Later I learned one of the strongest reforestation efforts was done by the Nazis. Apparently their weird, mystical thinking revolved a lot around trees, so they did their best to plant a lot of them. One of their weird hang-ups related back to that one guy leading legions to their death in dense forests. Strange, if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Oh definitely. The Nazis loved to play up that it was noble German tribesmen that destroyed Varus' legions, and later conquered the Empire itself. Not at all accurate, but it's propaganda, so that hardly matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
I wonder what their Italian allies thought of that propaganda angle!?!?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 23:12
|
|
