Re: We don't know what we don't know
link to the original post is here
However, the Romans ruled for a really long time, and, if we can only infer based on tombs and some ancient text, do we really know? Sure, the Romans had a census, but most of those texts are gone to history. So we are still merely speculating.
Then, you have claims that the life expectancy was 30 throughout the time period that the Romans ruled. How can you run an empire if you keep losing your population?
i think there is a simple but critical clarification the original writer needed to make in his article. when he said this:
you have claims that the life expectancy was 30 throughout the time period that the Romans ruled
did he mean the average life expectancy was 30? because then things start to make a bit more sense in that case.
the average Roman was not a member of the Senate. he was a commoner. a farmer, a labourer, a soldier or even a slave. this means his lifestyle was mostly pure hard labour.
by comparison the Senate, the upper class of Roman society have all the luxury they can acquire. a less laborious lifestyle, better quality food, better living conditions and more. more likely than not would have contributed to a longer lifespan for the upper class of ancient Rome right?
so while the average Roman dies young, the rulers of Rome live far from danger, free to rule under their iron fists for much longer.
is that a sufficient explanation for how long the empire sustained itself? well not really, i think the number 30 is far too low and stretches believability. but i think the idea that politicians could remain secure in their position long after they should be there is pretty much reality, mirroring the glorified gerontocracies in America and Europe.
to conclude though, i guess the original author is right after all. we don't know what we don't know.
-coal