RE: A documentary on the Roman empire
January 14, 2013 at 9:36 am
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2013 at 10:02 am by jonb.)
Roman Empire.
Your answers are in the very responses you give to me that are trying to hold on to the old model.
From Minimalist
Of coins; Yes but that as true both before and after the Roman Empire. The idea that only the coins of the realm could be used for exchange and the power to enforce that is of a much latter date. You will find archaeologically collections of coins, currency from all over the place.
Being English before decimalisation, many of the coins we used had names which referred to their origins.
Penny; very old coin basic unit of currency
Florin; two old shillings (I have forgotten where the shilling was first produced.) the ten new pence coin was a unit minted in Florence hence the name and prised for the consistency of the metals used.
Crown, Dollar, Mark. Terms used for five shillings or a quarter of a pound. and the pound which gives the thing away, coins were weights of metal. Which were stamped as a mark of authenticity to show they were of the right metal and weight.
Passports? look at how recent a development they are. If you think that a trader would be any safer in the boundaries of Roman control than outside it you will find little evidence, certainly the trade routes of north and eastern Europe seem more significant. Why because roads were if you wish to trade over long distances very inefficient and long distance trade happened on water, rivers and seas. The Roman mindset of military thinking that roads were a means of travel and rivers a natural barrier, no doubt was a factor as to why they could not maintain an economy without conquest and they were destined to fail.
Roads: Roman roads, odd isn't it that this is always put forward as their great achievement. But the roads we think of as Roman were already in existence when the Romans got there. True they may have resurfaced these roads and looked after their upkeep, but that is a different thing.
When I was a boy I was taught Roman roads were far superior to anything that came after. The nice flat Roman Road surface as opposed to the cobbled streets of mediaeval towns. The facts show us Roman superiority.
However, what happens when animals are moved down the road, they shit on it and even the arching of a Roman road starts to be unable to cope with large numbers of animals needed in a town with a thriving economy. Let alone if you are rich enough to use horses as beasts of burden rather than human slaves. What you end up with is all that dirt sitting on the street as a thick, dirty layer.
However if instead of making the road surface smooth it is cobbled, what happens is that the detritus is broken up and pushed between the cobbles by wheels and other animals leaving the tops of the stones as a solid surface on which you can walk. And as the dirt has been ground down it is more easily washed away to the gutters when the rain comes.
So either the cobbled street is better technologically than the Roman road, or it is proof of a more vibrant economy, or both.
I put up the list as it came up and that was halfway down, anyway I am not nor have I ever been until now sullied by the accusation I am a Yank. It should therefore obvious to even a passing observer I would not be part of an Americon organisation.
I am surprised at you for trying to deliver such a low blow. There ought to be a rule against this sort of implied slurry of one's background.
If I were to belong to a group of foreign origin from the list dealing in historical matters, Maybe the Egyptian one would be of more interest to me. Did your comment contain any truth?
Your answers are in the very responses you give to me that are trying to hold on to the old model.
From Minimalist
Quote:Commerce. Political stability. Engineering. As has been noted in 150 AD a person could begin a journey in Upper Egypt and travel on maintained roads that bridged rivers, with inns, using a common currency, without a need for passports all the way to the North Sea.
Of coins; Yes but that as true both before and after the Roman Empire. The idea that only the coins of the realm could be used for exchange and the power to enforce that is of a much latter date. You will find archaeologically collections of coins, currency from all over the place.
Being English before decimalisation, many of the coins we used had names which referred to their origins.
Penny; very old coin basic unit of currency
Florin; two old shillings (I have forgotten where the shilling was first produced.) the ten new pence coin was a unit minted in Florence hence the name and prised for the consistency of the metals used.
Crown, Dollar, Mark. Terms used for five shillings or a quarter of a pound. and the pound which gives the thing away, coins were weights of metal. Which were stamped as a mark of authenticity to show they were of the right metal and weight.
Passports? look at how recent a development they are. If you think that a trader would be any safer in the boundaries of Roman control than outside it you will find little evidence, certainly the trade routes of north and eastern Europe seem more significant. Why because roads were if you wish to trade over long distances very inefficient and long distance trade happened on water, rivers and seas. The Roman mindset of military thinking that roads were a means of travel and rivers a natural barrier, no doubt was a factor as to why they could not maintain an economy without conquest and they were destined to fail.
Roads: Roman roads, odd isn't it that this is always put forward as their great achievement. But the roads we think of as Roman were already in existence when the Romans got there. True they may have resurfaced these roads and looked after their upkeep, but that is a different thing.
When I was a boy I was taught Roman roads were far superior to anything that came after. The nice flat Roman Road surface as opposed to the cobbled streets of mediaeval towns. The facts show us Roman superiority.
However, what happens when animals are moved down the road, they shit on it and even the arching of a Roman road starts to be unable to cope with large numbers of animals needed in a town with a thriving economy. Let alone if you are rich enough to use horses as beasts of burden rather than human slaves. What you end up with is all that dirt sitting on the street as a thick, dirty layer.
However if instead of making the road surface smooth it is cobbled, what happens is that the detritus is broken up and pushed between the cobbles by wheels and other animals leaving the tops of the stones as a solid surface on which you can walk. And as the dirt has been ground down it is more easily washed away to the gutters when the rain comes.
So either the cobbled street is better technologically than the Roman road, or it is proof of a more vibrant economy, or both.
(January 13, 2013 at 10:41 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(January 12, 2013 at 5:58 pm)jonb Wrote: Honesty I do not know which you are implying I am a member of.
Then that should be a safe bet that the answer is no eh? But I was referring to the society of creative anachronism, which not only is the first google result, but the only one of those listed that pertains to history. They are basically goofy medievalists who think the dark ages were this glorious time.
I put up the list as it came up and that was halfway down, anyway I am not nor have I ever been until now sullied by the accusation I am a Yank. It should therefore obvious to even a passing observer I would not be part of an Americon organisation.
I am surprised at you for trying to deliver such a low blow. There ought to be a rule against this sort of implied slurry of one's background.
If I were to belong to a group of foreign origin from the list dealing in historical matters, Maybe the Egyptian one would be of more interest to me. Did your comment contain any truth?
