Sign into an existing account

deleted

There are two major schools of thought that have been pushed forward and lasted over time - the Gibbons model you mention above, and the Pirenne model which points to the breakup of the economy due to the Islamic/Arabic conquering of the areas of trading routes.

Pirenne says that Rome's rule fell, but the replacing kings tried to emulate Roman rules and laws as much as they could, just in their specific area of control - I liken it to the Confederacy breaking from US in Dec 1860-April 1861, pre-war. Nothing really changed but who you paid taxes to. However, once the trade routes were broken to the spices of the Orient, local economies which traded with China fell, which had a cascading effect throughout Western europe. Notice that Eastern Europe did not have this issue. I liken this to today's global supply chain. You cut off a major exporter of oil like Russia, you then increase prices, which has an effect on costs of all items surrounding that product. Spices in the times after the fall were used to preserve meat, or covr up flavoring of aging meats and veg, and to alleviate and draw off the salt used for preservation. IOW, the farther away from the trade routes, the more expensive it became. Add tariffs through each area as the spice passed through, and you have an unworkable economy, which led to lack of tax income, which led to breakdown of consolidated power.
Tie increased hunger to decreased power centers gets you more criminal activity as people turn to theft and highway robbery and mercenary work to survive. At least that's how I view the transition period from the breakup of the Roman Empire into Byzantine in the east and various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms in the west to the rise of nobility/strongman "feudalism" - as an economic change from "global" to "local/sustenance" economy.

69 a.d. was fuckin bangin