Climate Change and the Fall of the Roman Empire

[Iskander 3.1]

From NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133143...e-fall-of-rome

I found this to be very interesting and I hope that other armchair scholars of Roman history think so too. Any thoughts/ideas are welcome but PLEASE don't turn this into an argument about global warming ().

[-42-]

Doubtful, Rome had quite a few nails in her coffin aside from any percieved climatalogical issues. And tree ring data has been shown to be unreliable at best.

[Vaginacles]

If it is the case, poor agricultural productivity merely exacerbated the already declining tax base due to an overtaxed military industrial state. I don't think its even a major cause of the fall of rome, though more important than the claim of civic "decadence".

[Blxz]

Even so, the medieval warm period and the little ice age showed a similar rise and fall (i use the term loosely here) of civilizations and the like. Climate plays a big role in many things. Such a broad topic. Having said that I didn't read your link so I could be way off. I did write a paper about this late last year though and there is some evidence to suggest that broad scale climate change affects nations worldwide with warming being beneficial and cooling having negative effects.

Lets all go fire up our SUV's and reap the benefits of a warmer earth =)

[abou]

It's something that I'll listen to later. My degree in undergrad was evolutionary biology -- which of course includes a bit of ecology -- so I'm curious as to what is said. Hopefully they aren't confusing bad weather with climate: the latter being an aggregate of weather.

[Kuningaz]

Well, I've read about a theroy that claimed the germanic migration was mostly caused by a harsher climate in northern europe and less by pressure from the steppe peoples. So you could say that climate change accelerated Rome's fall quite a bit... However I think that corruption, 'decadence' and especially the reliance on foreign (germanic) soldiers and generals were the main cause of the end of the Western Empire.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, I've read about a theroy that claimed the germanic migration was mostly caused by a harsher climate in northern europe and less by pressure from the steppe peoples. So you could say that climate change accelerated Rome's fall quite a bit... However I think that corruption, 'decadence' and especially the reliance on foreign (germanic) soldiers and generals were the main cause of the end of the Western Empire.

This was the first thing I thought about because climate would have had more influence on the borders of various agricultural growing areas than the middle of them. I don't think Carthage and Egypt would have been too greatly effected by that sort of thing.

[vollorix]

I might be horribly mistaking, but was not the climate change responsible for the downfall of the first(?) egyptian dynasty ( the one before the invasion of Hyxos(sp?) ? Of course, those were more ancient times, but weren´t those tough guys responsible for the Pyramid building? ;)

[abou]

Doubtful, Rome had quite a few nails in her coffin aside from any percieved climatalogical issues. And tree ring data has been shown to be unreliable at best.

Actually, tree rings are pretty good. The only place tree rings are worthless is in environments where there is not a winter to cease growth -- e.g. the tropics. Furthermore, as any good experiment, the researchers pooled data from other sources such as peat bogs to corroborate findings.

What I am taking away from this is that issues with climate change or El Nino/La Nina events could have been the hair on the camel's back. If you live in the west, food isn't so much of a problem. The agriculture industry is pretty good at taking care of things. Still, even in the UK when the snows hit in December, you can get food shortages. Go back 2,000 years, add in everything that was going on that we are familiar with it looks bad. But even then consider such things as decreased tax revenues from poor harvests for the Romans. Even further, consider being a Germanic tribe when you yourself have a poor harvest. The relatively prosperous regions of the south under the control of Rome look very tempting.

In the end, does climate change -- or maybe the better term for that specific era would be variability -- have a role to play? I'd say very possibly so; especially considering the confounding factors that we are more familiar with.

[Ibrahim]

Doubtful, Rome had quite a few nails in her coffin aside from any percieved climatalogical issues. And tree ring data has been shown to be unreliable at best.

trees tend to add rings of growth every year (the borders are, as abou said, due to winter); these rings tend to vary in thickness, according to precitpitation and soil fertility. the thicker the ring, the better the condition. bear in mind, the technique is most accurate when a tree ring sample is used to look at conditions that the tree lived in (i.e., the place/region where it lived); you can't se a ring in Arizona to construct models for data in Germany.

and as abou said: it is pretty good. for example, it was used in Virginia to confirm the existence of a drought in the first few years of Jamestown colony (which exacerbated problems between the Natives and Jamestown); the same being the case for the Anasazi tribes (apparently, there was a long drought, or series of droughts, starting in IIRC 1250). it is also why we have strativarius violins: the cooler, drier conditions in the norther hemisphere generally meant thinner rings; oddly, this means a (supposedly) better violin (have no clue why-I'm a paleontology/geoscience student).

and since abou is right, and scientists were smart enough to pool data together accurately, a chronology of tree ring data has been assembled for various localities in the northern hemisphere, going back IIRC to ~10,000 Bp. the Southern Hemisphere unfortunately is not as well catalogued (for example, almost all the data for the "little ice age", comes fromt he Northern Hemisphere. It doesn't mean it didn't really exist, just that we only have data for the Northern Hemisphere.)

[QuintusSertorius]

This was the first thing I thought about because climate would have had more influence on the borders of various agricultural growing areas than the middle of them. I don't think Carthage and Egypt would have been too greatly effected by that sort of thing.

On the contrary, desertification hit north Africa pretty hard, destroying what was once fertile land. Probably a combination of over-farming and changes in climate.

Worth noting that over the span of time we're talking, changes in climate on a regional level wouldn't be unusual. Rivers can appear, disappear or change course in a couple of millenia, for example.

[antisocialmunky]

I was referring specifically to the time period he's referring to.

[Blxz]

I was referring specifically to the time period he's referring to.

Yes, but the changes could have started a century before that, only to be felt once some invisible critical threshold has been crossed. You can't just look at the time period on isolation; need to consider both before and after for some length of time.

[antisocialmunky]

Then you are aware that the Sahara used to be a rain forest and have been drying up since pretty much forever. Maybe a asteroid landing in it helped it out but as far as long trends go, its been going on for a pretty long chunk of human history. That being said, the expansion of the Sahara waxes and wanes from time to time and maybe climate change has something to do with it. As for agricultural production in those areas at that particular time, I'm not aware that there were food production issues.

Well not including political things like the conquest of Carthage.

[Vaginacles]

Well, I've read about a theroy that claimed the germanic migration was mostly caused by a harsher climate in northern europe and less by pressure from the steppe peoples. So you could say that climate change accelerated Rome's fall quite a bit... However I think that corruption, 'decadence' and especially the reliance on foreign (germanic) soldiers and generals were the main cause of the end of the Western Empire.

explain your decadence theory

[fireblade]

Hi, I'm not an expert on this matter, but wouldn't the roman empire in it's prime have been able to smash any migration coming its way to bits?

The fall of the empire was a combination of factors, which include the increase in barbarians, but a lot of others as well (especially turning their back on the old gods, oh wait)

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

turning their back on the old gods

You may have a point there actually. Polytheism and Monotheism cultures tend to brew up entirely different sets of thought. These may range from general perception to natural phenomons and superstitions to how open/closed-minded of the general masses.

[Kuningaz]

explain your decadence theory

Well, decadence may not be exactly the right word for this, but what I meant was the increasing unwillingness of Romans to serve in their own armies and the general reluctance to wage war (they'd rather pay their enemies off). Plus the emperors' court(s) was/were ripe with intrigues that damaged Rome's ability to resist their multiple enemies.
And yes, it took A LOT to take the Roman Empire down, especially the East's resiliance was astonishing.

[Vaginacles]

Well, decadence may not be exactly the right word for this, but what I meant was the increasing unwillingness of Romans to serve in their own armies and the general reluctance to wage war (they'd rather pay their enemies off). Plus the emperors' court(s) was/were ripe with intrigues that damaged Rome's ability to resist their multiple enemies.
And yes, it took A LOT to take the Roman Empire down, especially the East's resiliance was astonishing.

i don't know if this was necessarly true, considering that the roman military in the 4th century was more or less equal to the 2nd century imperial army. Plus, with the new inherited system of profession reforms by Diocletian, all sons of soldiers were compelled to be soldiers as their main profession. It still doesn't address why the east survive but the west fell, since the eastern roman empire had just as many, if not more, barbarian auxillia compared to the western empire.

[Blxz]

Then you are aware that the Sahara used to be a rain forest and have been drying up since pretty much forever. Maybe a asteroid landing in it helped it out but as far as long trends go, its been going on for a pretty long chunk of human history. That being said, the expansion of the Sahara waxes and wanes from time to time and maybe climate change has something to do with it. As for agricultural production in those areas at that particular time, I'm not aware that there were food production issues.

Well not including political things like the conquest of Carthage.

Fully aware. Also I'd have to agree with you, food production is not the issue when it comes to the fall of the empire, at least not in that area. But climate itself has much to do with many different things. General unrest in the populace perhaps; neighbouring regions maybe? I don't go for this whole 'climate change' thingy. Natural, cyclic variation, yes. I think a combination of factors co-incided and together caused a nation, in what could have been a slightly weak moment, to topple. The fact that half of it survived shows...something. I forgot what i was writing during that sentence, damn people at the door. And its far too late for me to really care anymore. But I'm not here to argue. There are many people, possibly many of them in this thread, who know much more than me and may even be willing to debate it.

Its unfortunate I think, especially for the poor people who had to live through it. But its been and gone, lets just hope it doesn't happen again.

[Skullheadhq]

How funny, I had the dutch translation of this article in my geography test a few days ago.

[Vaginacles]

Fully aware. Also I'd have to agree with you, food production is not the issue when it comes to the fall of the empire, at least not in that area. But climate itself has much to do with many different things. General unrest in the populace perhaps; neighbouring regions maybe? I don't go for this whole 'climate change' thingy. Natural, cyclic variation, yes. I think a combination of factors co-incided and together caused a nation, in what could have been a slightly weak moment, to topple. The fact that half of it survived shows...something. I forgot what i was writing during that sentence, damn people at the door. And its far too late for me to really care anymore. But I'm not here to argue. There are many people, possibly many of them in this thread, who know much more than me and may even be willing to debate it.

Its unfortunate I think, especially for the poor people who had to live through it. But its been and gone, lets just hope it doesn't happen again.

How much would a cooling of climate affect agricultural productivity in the levant, nile, and anatolia regions compared to gaul, spain, britain, and north africa? I think the western empire was hit harder by climate change compared to the eastern empire that relied on flood plains and already warm climate regions.

[Rahl]

A cooling of climate can effect even hotter regions in negative ways, less rain, floods, whatever... the climate is a very complex thing and the dumb theories and discussions of the last years show that our understanding of it isn't very great. If you don't get exact information on how the weather changed in certain regions it all becomes just speculation.

[antisocialmunky]

Fully aware. Also I'd have to agree with you, food production is not the issue when it comes to the fall of the empire, at least not in that area. But climate itself has much to do with many different things. General unrest in the populace perhaps; neighbouring regions maybe? I don't go for this whole 'climate change' thingy. Natural, cyclic variation, yes. I think a combination of factors co-incided and together caused a nation, in what could have been a slightly weak moment, to topple. The fact that half of it survived shows...something. I forgot what i was writing during that sentence, damn people at the door. And its far too late for me to really care anymore. But I'm not here to argue. There are many people, possibly many of them in this thread, who know much more than me and may even be willing to debate it.

Its unfortunate I think, especially for the poor people who had to live through it. But its been and gone, lets just hope it doesn't happen again.

Which is what I said about the Northern Europeans. They were the most heavily impacted during the Little Ice Age which would give some hints as to how a somewhat similar temperature fluctuation would have affected Europe.

Also, Volcanoes are such climate trolls.

[Karel de Stoute]

I don't think climate was a big factor when you look at the fall of the roman empire. Germans did not come to live in Gallia because it was becomming to cold in Germania but because they were invited to serve as foederati and protect the borders.
That was necesarry because the empire was just getting to big and roman virtus became forgotten(i blame the christians) so not enough citizens could be motivated to serve in the armie. But those barbarian armies were still alowed to serve under their own kings. And since the time of Marius, the best way to get political power is with a couple of legions by your side. That means military and political power was now in the hands of rivaling barbarians who were busier fighting eachother than actually defending the border. En plus, in the tirth century of the christian calander, the western part of the empire was struck by an economic crisis. No more wars of conquest, population went down because of plague, precious metals and money became scarce so trade fell back. Thats why people relied more on local rulers both for protection and income(farmland). Situation in the east was different because thats where all the big cities and the money were so economic crisis wasnt as bad and foreign invaders could be bribed. This is just a very rough scetch. But i think that climate change at the same time was just coincidence: West fell because of reasons i just discribed but eastern empire lived on for another 1000 years. excuse my english, i'm a dutch speaker

[Ludens]

Hello Karel de Stoute, welcome to the .Org and to EB.

However, please refrain from taking cheap shots at Christianity. If you can make a convincing argument that it was the Christians who brought down the empire, then by all means do, but just posting "blame the Christians" is close to trolling. Lack of enthusiasm for warfare was a problem long before Christianity ever became the official religion.

[Karel de Stoute]

Hello Karel de Stoute, welcome to the .Org and to EB.

However, please refrain from taking cheap shots at Christianity. If you can make a convincing argument that it was the Christians who brought down the empire, then by all means do, but just posting "blame the Christians" is close to trolling. Lack of enthusiasm for warfare was a problem long before Christianity ever became the official religion.

Well, i'm not saying they brought the empire down on their own but i think the first christians were a bigger factor in the decline of the western roman empire than the climate. It is a fact that christians began forming a state within the state. That way they also threatend the unity of the empire. The first christians were very much concerned about the afterlife so that they began to neglect this life. This is both a reason for the decline of the empire as a result of it. They for example did not want to participate in sacrifices to the old gods. Because of that emperors blamed them that the gods had forsaken the empire and before christianity became the state religon they were prosecuted for it.

[antisocialmunky]

It is true that the Christians were concerned with the abstract 'Kingdom of Heaven' but they divorced themselves from politics in general until much later on... like around the time of the Arian Heresy. Also the Christians were persecuted for not worshiping the images of the Emperor, not the 'old gods' as the Romans were pretty chill with letting people worship their own stuff as long as you gave your dues to the Empire. This was problematic with the Jews before as well.

And the fact that the heart of Christianity was always in Asia until the Great Schism doesn't help your theory very much.

[Karel de Stoute]

I was refering to the prosecution of the christians by decius. All people in the empire were ordered to sarifice to the gods for the safety of the empire. If they did, they got a paper that said they were good subjects and followers of the old ways. A lot of christians refused to do this. And the rise of christianty was just one of many internal problems the roman emperors had to face. They eventualy overcame this problem by making it the statereligion. But when christanity became the statereligion, the roman empire was already divided in eastern and western half. In a way it is ironic that the first christians were one of the reasons for the fall of the roman empire, but the biggest remains of the empire to this day are the organisatory structures of the catholic church who are based on civil government as it was in the roman empire(bishops in province capital etc.).

[Vaginacles]

I don't think the Late Roman military was a voluntary organization, it was a hereditary profession. Thus i don't see how youcan say enthusiasm for war was a factor in the fall of Rome, unless there is evidence of significant desertion within the roman army.