Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: