I actually discussed this very model of bad history on ACOUP. It was not 'uncontrolled immigration' that brought down the Roman Empire, but the Roman refusal to incorporate the new arrivals as their predecessors had done time and time before. https://acoup.blog/2021/07/30/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-v-saving-and-losing-an-empire/ …https://twitter.com/reeshistory/status/1454479087314087948 …
-
By the late empire the Romans absolutely had a unifying bureaucratic structure. I'd actually argue that was one of the problems: the shift from systems of highly localized government to centralized administration consumed a lot of resources.
Also, the Romans had paper-making via papyrus and also used wax and wood tablets. They had no shortage of written records - in Egypt, where papyrus survives, we know that even small government transactions, like the payment of customs dues, came with paper receipts.
-
-
Really? Fascinating. I was under the impression that, because papyrus put an upper limit on total paper-like resources, the Roman elite and government were constrained in the degree to which they could form a unified national identity and government (as compared w Han
)Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.