Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3145827.html
A very thought-provoking study of the natural causes behind the collapse of the Roman Empire, which he describes as the biggest economic reverse suffered by any region of the world in human history (though surely the destruction of the pre-colonisation Americas must come pretty close).
Harper goes in detail into the two big factors to which he attributes the fall of Rome: climate change and pandemic. The initial growth of the Roman Empire took place at a moment when the Mediterranean was unusually warm and wet by the standards of the last few thousand years. When the climate started shifting - not for anthropogenic reasons, just from the natural shift of orbits and sunspots - crops optimised for the previous situation did not do as well, and also shifting populations (both of humans and of animals) meant that new diseases had new populations to devastate.
He identifies three big pandemics which devastated the Roman Empire - the Antonine plague of 165, the plague of Cyprian in 249, and Justinian’s plague in 541. The first of these was probably related to smallpox, the second is uncertain and the third was definitely bubonic plague in its first major European manifestation. Unhealthy Roman urbanisation made it all worse. So did a major volcanic eruption in 536, the “year without a summer” - the volcano in question has not been identified, but the effects are clear. The 6th century plague was proportionally at least as bad as the Black Death of the 14th century. He pulls in lots of contemporary observations, notably from Galen and Procopius.
It’s a good read, though slightly oddly organised in places, and marked down for poor monochrome maps which don’t always illustrate the points being made and also for GRRRRRRR endnotes. In particular, though Harper doesn’t put it in these terms, it’s an important corrective to Gibbon, who very much wanted to find a human political cause of the Decline and Fall. The human factor is not absent from Harper’s account, but the key point is that the most developed society is still vulnerable to the vicissitudes of climate change and disease - a lesson for us all.
A very thought-provoking study of the natural causes behind the collapse of the Roman Empire, which he describes as the biggest economic reverse suffered by any region of the world in human history (though surely the destruction of the pre-colonisation Americas must come pretty close).
Harper goes in detail into the two big factors to which he attributes the fall of Rome: climate change and pandemic. The initial growth of the Roman Empire took place at a moment when the Mediterranean was unusually warm and wet by the standards of the last few thousand years. When the climate started shifting - not for anthropogenic reasons, just from the natural shift of orbits and sunspots - crops optimised for the previous situation did not do as well, and also shifting populations (both of humans and of animals) meant that new diseases had new populations to devastate.
He identifies three big pandemics which devastated the Roman Empire - the Antonine plague of 165, the plague of Cyprian in 249, and Justinian’s plague in 541. The first of these was probably related to smallpox, the second is uncertain and the third was definitely bubonic plague in its first major European manifestation. Unhealthy Roman urbanisation made it all worse. So did a major volcanic eruption in 536, the “year without a summer” - the volcano in question has not been identified, but the effects are clear. The 6th century plague was proportionally at least as bad as the Black Death of the 14th century. He pulls in lots of contemporary observations, notably from Galen and Procopius.
It’s a good read, though slightly oddly organised in places, and marked down for poor monochrome maps which don’t always illustrate the points being made and also for GRRRRRRR endnotes. In particular, though Harper doesn’t put it in these terms, it’s an important corrective to Gibbon, who very much wanted to find a human political cause of the Decline and Fall. The human factor is not absent from Harper’s account, but the key point is that the most developed society is still vulnerable to the vicissitudes of climate change and disease - a lesson for us all.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
informative
slow-paced
This book places disease and climate at the center of the fall of the Roman Empire. It's probably best read in conjunction with other books of the fall of Rome- its political and military narrative is not especially detailed, but as Harper points out, many books already exist that cover those dimensions. This is a good, sweeping view of new information, told in fairly accessible (though often very purple) prose.
I found the disease chapters to be especially masterful, and will probably assign them in future classes. Harper gives a compelling picture of the ordinary disease regimen of the Roman Empire, which already took a toll on its population (the discussion of the diminutive height of Romans as resulting from disease rather than malnourishment was new to me, and fascinating), and then does an equally masterful job in showing why pandemics were different. He gives the Antonine plague and the plague of Cyprian their due importance, which I don't think has been done in quite this way before. The bubonic plague of the sixth century and beyond is described with queasy relish, and its economic, social, and political effects well argued.
I found the climate chapters less compelling, but this is partly because climate data itself is so complicated. Harper does his best, but the effects of many changes were variable and localized, and sometimes he gets lost in details and hypotheticals. He is on the strongest ground (and writes the best) about big and dramatic changes: volcanic eruptions, the Late Antique Little Ice Age. In general, it seems clearer and clearer that climate played a role, but many details of that role remain to be further clarified.
My main critique of the book involves its treatment of the archaeological evidence for the early empire. Here again Harper is somewhat at the mercy of the data: archaeological evidence is also messy and fragmented. Even so, not enough attention is paid to regional variation. Harper presents a relentlessly sunny view of life up to the mid-second century, insisting on universal agricultural prosperity and economic growth. But our evidence and proxies are heavily biased towards Italy, and contingent in various ways (Harper cites, but dismisses, Walter Scheidel's critique along these lines), and we know there were regional variations and areas that stagnated in the empire. Harper critiques building as a proxy of growth in the late empire, but embraces it in the early empire. He discusses slavery for the late empire, but largely ignores it in the early empire. He gives regional variation its due for the later empire, but not for the earlier (this may be partly because we have so many broad, good syntheses for the late empire, like Chris Wickham's "Framing the Early Middle Ages.") In general, his footing is simply much surer for later centuries, which makes the first two chapters read as too sweeping and shallow. We might as well have had no new information since Gibbon.
But Harper's strengths lie in Late Antiquity, and it's for that narrative that you should read this book. Its main resonance for the present day is that the waves of migration and pressure set in motion by climate change, and the blows caused by disease (which we would do well to consider in an age of increasing resistance to antibiotics), are very hard to overcome.
I found the disease chapters to be especially masterful, and will probably assign them in future classes. Harper gives a compelling picture of the ordinary disease regimen of the Roman Empire, which already took a toll on its population (the discussion of the diminutive height of Romans as resulting from disease rather than malnourishment was new to me, and fascinating), and then does an equally masterful job in showing why pandemics were different. He gives the Antonine plague and the plague of Cyprian their due importance, which I don't think has been done in quite this way before. The bubonic plague of the sixth century and beyond is described with queasy relish, and its economic, social, and political effects well argued.
I found the climate chapters less compelling, but this is partly because climate data itself is so complicated. Harper does his best, but the effects of many changes were variable and localized, and sometimes he gets lost in details and hypotheticals. He is on the strongest ground (and writes the best) about big and dramatic changes: volcanic eruptions, the Late Antique Little Ice Age. In general, it seems clearer and clearer that climate played a role, but many details of that role remain to be further clarified.
My main critique of the book involves its treatment of the archaeological evidence for the early empire. Here again Harper is somewhat at the mercy of the data: archaeological evidence is also messy and fragmented. Even so, not enough attention is paid to regional variation. Harper presents a relentlessly sunny view of life up to the mid-second century, insisting on universal agricultural prosperity and economic growth. But our evidence and proxies are heavily biased towards Italy, and contingent in various ways (Harper cites, but dismisses, Walter Scheidel's critique along these lines), and we know there were regional variations and areas that stagnated in the empire. Harper critiques building as a proxy of growth in the late empire, but embraces it in the early empire. He discusses slavery for the late empire, but largely ignores it in the early empire. He gives regional variation its due for the later empire, but not for the earlier (this may be partly because we have so many broad, good syntheses for the late empire, like Chris Wickham's "Framing the Early Middle Ages.") In general, his footing is simply much surer for later centuries, which makes the first two chapters read as too sweeping and shallow. We might as well have had no new information since Gibbon.
But Harper's strengths lie in Late Antiquity, and it's for that narrative that you should read this book. Its main resonance for the present day is that the waves of migration and pressure set in motion by climate change, and the blows caused by disease (which we would do well to consider in an age of increasing resistance to antibiotics), are very hard to overcome.
Rome was once the biggest empire in the world. Why did it end? I had always been under the impression that the root cause was insurrections, revolts, and invasions by surrounding tribes. Well, yes, but why were these enemies so successful, against the biggest, baddest armies of the Roman empire?
The answer is that the Roman defeats did not occur overnight. They occurred over the course of centuries. Kyle Harper, the book's author, makes a very good case that the Roman empire was battered by pandemics and climate change. Hmmm ... sound familiar?
Rome is well known for building then-state-of-the-art roads over long distances. After all, we have the well-known saying, "All roads lead to Rome". Rome's bread-basket was Egypt, along the Nile River. Long-distance transportation and communication across the vast empire was unprecedented in history. But there were consequences. Local outbreaks of epidemics in the outskirts of the empire soon spread as pandemics across huge swaths. These pandemics sometimes decimated the population, including the Roman legions.
On top of the pandemics were droughts. At the beginning of the Roman empire, the Mediterranean region was more humid and cooler than it is today. Climate change induced aridification, and the result was occasional droughts that lasted years. These changes also affected the Rome's ability to field enormous armies across its entire empire.
The author notes that the real wonder, is how Rome lasted as long as it did. Multiple pandemics and droughts took their tolls, but the empire was amazingly robust. Towards the end, some really incompetent (and evil) emperors did their part, too, in ending the reign of Rome.
The book is also very interesting, due to the science that Kyle Harper adds. The details of the climate changes are deeply interwoven with the science of climate. This applies also to the pandemics and diseases. The book dives deeply into the science of medicine and the germs and medical practices of Rome. So, while this is primarily a history book, it is also quite immersed in science.
The author is a professor and professional historian. While the book is fascinating, the style of writing is EXTREMELY dry. It is a history book for historians and science historians, probably not for the general public.
The answer is that the Roman defeats did not occur overnight. They occurred over the course of centuries. Kyle Harper, the book's author, makes a very good case that the Roman empire was battered by pandemics and climate change. Hmmm ... sound familiar?
Rome is well known for building then-state-of-the-art roads over long distances. After all, we have the well-known saying, "All roads lead to Rome". Rome's bread-basket was Egypt, along the Nile River. Long-distance transportation and communication across the vast empire was unprecedented in history. But there were consequences. Local outbreaks of epidemics in the outskirts of the empire soon spread as pandemics across huge swaths. These pandemics sometimes decimated the population, including the Roman legions.
On top of the pandemics were droughts. At the beginning of the Roman empire, the Mediterranean region was more humid and cooler than it is today. Climate change induced aridification, and the result was occasional droughts that lasted years. These changes also affected the Rome's ability to field enormous armies across its entire empire.
The author notes that the real wonder, is how Rome lasted as long as it did. Multiple pandemics and droughts took their tolls, but the empire was amazingly robust. Towards the end, some really incompetent (and evil) emperors did their part, too, in ending the reign of Rome.
The book is also very interesting, due to the science that Kyle Harper adds. The details of the climate changes are deeply interwoven with the science of climate. This applies also to the pandemics and diseases. The book dives deeply into the science of medicine and the germs and medical practices of Rome. So, while this is primarily a history book, it is also quite immersed in science.
The author is a professor and professional historian. While the book is fascinating, the style of writing is EXTREMELY dry. It is a history book for historians and science historians, probably not for the general public.
Scholarly nonfiction is always so hard to rate. Is this examination of the impacts of disease and climate on the fall of the Roman empire interesting and important? Yes, very much so. Do I have enough detailed background on the minutia of Roman history to independently evaluate the strength of this examination? That's a big, fat no. It is a very good sign however that the footnotes and appendices are over a quarter of the pages in my copy, and that the author is a professor of classics, so I'll take him at his word. My studies of quaternary geology also jive with the trends described. Now, was this book a readable, well-written page turner? Yes, to the extent that this type of study can ever be, but of course that also means sections that are rather dry and that require concentration from the reader. This doesn't bother me, I knew what I was biting into. And it *was* full of delicious thoughts; my brain feels bigger for having consumed this book. I wish it had the life changing, revelatory quality and poetical prose, perfect-example-of-the-genre-ness I personally need in order to give this sort of text 5 stars. Alas, call me picky. I'll still be thinking about this for a long time and will be glad to have it on the shelf.
This should have been THE book for me: climate change and the Roman empire in one book!
It is certainly an incredibly erudite work of research, but for me, reading for pleasure, it was really a bit too detailed: 50% pathogens, 30% climate, 20% Roman history...
It is certainly an incredibly erudite work of research, but for me, reading for pleasure, it was really a bit too detailed: 50% pathogens, 30% climate, 20% Roman history...