I've just watched Iain Stewart talking rubbish on BBC2 about the fall of Rome. He claims that lead poisoning was a major factor in the fall of Rome. Now, I'm happy to accept that, due to the use of lead vessels in wine-making processes and in water piping, that many elite Romans did suffer from lead poisoning. But presumably this was the case for elite Romans in the Republican period as much as in the Empire, and all of Stewart's examples of mad Romans affected by lead poisoning came from the first century AD. Yet the 'fall' of the empire Stewart was talking about was four hundred years later. In any case, like many other explanations of the fall of the Roman empire, this runs afoul of the fact that the eastern empire, presumably as affected by lead poisoning as the west, doesn't collapse in the fifth century AD.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Rocky rubbish
It's a new month, time to actually do a post here, I suppose.
I've just watched Iain Stewart talking rubbish on BBC2 about the fall of Rome. He claims that lead poisoning was a major factor in the fall of Rome. Now, I'm happy to accept that, due to the use of lead vessels in wine-making processes and in water piping, that many elite Romans did suffer from lead poisoning. But presumably this was the case for elite Romans in the Republican period as much as in the Empire, and all of Stewart's examples of mad Romans affected by lead poisoning came from the first century AD. Yet the 'fall' of the empire Stewart was talking about was four hundred years later. In any case, like many other explanations of the fall of the Roman empire, this runs afoul of the fact that the eastern empire, presumably as affected by lead poisoning as the west, doesn't collapse in the fifth century AD.
I've just watched Iain Stewart talking rubbish on BBC2 about the fall of Rome. He claims that lead poisoning was a major factor in the fall of Rome. Now, I'm happy to accept that, due to the use of lead vessels in wine-making processes and in water piping, that many elite Romans did suffer from lead poisoning. But presumably this was the case for elite Romans in the Republican period as much as in the Empire, and all of Stewart's examples of mad Romans affected by lead poisoning came from the first century AD. Yet the 'fall' of the empire Stewart was talking about was four hundred years later. In any case, like many other explanations of the fall of the Roman empire, this runs afoul of the fact that the eastern empire, presumably as affected by lead poisoning as the west, doesn't collapse in the fifth century AD.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But did you watch any of the Big Roman Dig stuff on Channel 4? Lots of talking heads on that, in between the actual digging, with many sensible-sounding remarks about the life and end of Roman Britain.
Just going back through some of the older posts and categories. I've never heard the idea about lead poisoning causing the downfall of the Roman empire. I've heard a lot of different reasons before, but never that one. Interesting post. Thanks.
Post a Comment