The Decimation of Europe

[imperial.]

We quite often hear of the positive influence of the Romans, including lots of infrastructure and allowing global influences to spread and merge within the empire.

Watching this long ass Seminar on the Celts (was in Spanish) they showed that in the ''Celti-iberos'' population there was 245,000 - 450,000. Which had me thinking and something clicked in my head.

Keep those numbers in mind.

During the Germanics Cimbrian '' War ''

You had the Migrations of peoples some warriors but mostly of children, women, elderly, peasants, farmers, dogs, cattle etc the variances obviously depending on the tribe. Which resulted in 340,000 killed and 150,000 enslaved of Germanic and Celtic folks.

During the Gallic Wars

1,000,000 Celts killed in battle and another 1,000,000+ Celtic innocent people captured and enslaved, Over 800 highly populated Towns & Settlements (which eventuate into Cities) absolutely destroyed and 430,000 Germani folks killed. Sacred groves everywhere decimated, priestess and worshipers slaughtered.

That's a Mass Genocide.

During the Punic Wars

The Middle-East Powers ( Update : I'm just going by what Roman sources say they originated) collided, like a blackhole bringing everyone else around them into it. This wasn't just a Clash of Culture but, for the first time we see Mesopotamia style Imperialism brought into the West.

The Largest recorded Death tole in BCE wikipage history, there was 1,250,000–1,850,000 killed.

Image shows the peak of this power play conflict.

(that data from wiki)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll#:~:text=Ancient wars War ,Central Asi ... 12 more rows

Now, at a time when World Population was no where near what it is...

Despite the Greco - Roman scholars claim, I'm starting to think that may have not been necessary. That those Roman Settlements were actually built on top of previous ones burnt down, only now with a lot less filthy barbarians to maintain.

 

[Godd_Howard]

That death and destruction wasn't necessary of course. But the money it brought it was too good to pass on.

That's why Carthage lost in the long run IMO. They focused on trade, steady growth and development of actual colonies. While Rome just went in killed everyone and stole everything, then had their own guys settle in. All those soldiers fighing the wars did need that retirement plan delivered, and they were sure as hell not getting any prime land in Italy that was already owned by the upper class.

 

[Shogun96]

As a Major in Late Roman and Byzantine History imma say all of this is extremely superficial, and those numbers are incredibly inflated.

 

[imperial.]

That death and destruction wasn't necessary of course. But the money it brought it was too good to pass on.

That's why Carthage lost in the long run IMO. They focused on trade, steady growth and development of actual colonies. While Rome just went in killed everyone and stole everything, then had their own guys settle in. All those soldiers fighing the wars did need that retirement plan delivered, and they were sure as hell not getting any prime land in Italy that was already owned by the upper class.

Exactly It was all about that shekel upkeep and also funding the war Machine since ''Brutus'' in Latin actually meant the monster hiding in the closets.

''Caesar's motivation for the invasion seems to have been his need for gold to pay off his debts and for a successful military expedition to boost his political career. The people of Gaul could provide him with both. So much gold was looted from Gaul that after the war the price of gold fell by as much as 20%. ''

Apparently the mineral wealth of Iberia & Gaul had been unrivalled.

''Hispania supplied the Roman Empire with coinage, silver, food, olive oil, wine, and metal. Commodities mined include: iron, gold, coal, lead, silver, zinc, and salt. '' Alloys which were Essential for the Bronze age can be found in abundance too.

The Celtic folk had access to so much Gold, Silver and minerals it was being used as part of their Barbaric culture and unfortunately not to pay off civilized debt. They are finding more and more artifacts now even mirrors, plates and Bracelets.

 

[Godd_Howard]

Games don't usually let you experience that side of war. Unless it's Stellaris and you are purging vile slugs or some kind of hive mind bugs, then it's fair game.

 

[Godd_Howard]

As a Major in Late Roman and Byzantine History imma say all of this is extremely superficial, and those numbers are incredibly inflated.

True, that's the first thing you learn in History class. Historians back in the day always prop up the numbers way too high. But if the Romans were so proud of it they wrote it down like "gazzilions of gold" then it must mean it was a lot more than we can still imagine.

 

[Shogun96]

True, that's the first thing you learn in History class. Historians back in the day always prop up the numbers way too high. But if the Romans were so proud of it they wrote it down like "gazzilions of gold" then it must mean it was a lot more than we can still imagine.

Yeah that's the logic behind it, probably something like that DID happen, just not on that scale. People think of Antiquity (or essentially any time before the industrial age) in a modern framework, which skews their understanding.

Imagine killing 1,250,000 people in Antiquity, using only melee weapons, no detailed knowledge of the area, and so on and so forth. That the Romans did, fairly often, like to raze cities and villages to ground, it's likely true, but 1,250,000 people? With the population numbers and density of the time?
2 million + Celts killed and enslaved during the Gallic Wars? Where would they even put one million slaves in Italy? It would have drastically altered the demographic composition of many urban settlements.
Absolutely bollocks.

 

[imperial.]

True, that's the first thing you learn in History class. Historians back in the day always prop up the numbers way too high. But if the Romans were so pround of it they wrote it down like "gazzilions of gold" then it must mean it was a lot more than we can still imagine.

True, like bragging rights. Still even if you half all the numbers it's like some psycho murderers wet dream lol. The Roman Historians want us to believe their narrative when it suits them only time will tell with further archeology.

Like you said, if they chose to brag about a certain moment (as opposed to any other) it must of meant something substantial to them. None the less that's the stats they gave.

 

[vanin]

As a Major in Late Roman and Byzantine History imma say all of this is extremely superficial, and those numbers are incredibly inflated.

Always reminds me of the account that Sulla defeated Mithridates in Greece despite being outnumbered something like 10 to 1, killed 30'000 and only lost a hundred. Always felt like call-back to the Persian Wars, with a not-so-subtle assertion that the Romans protected (Greek) civilization against Eastern aggression.

 

[Phili]

There are other aspects to consider.
During the American War Between the States, which was renamed the American Civil War in the 20th Century. More soldiers died of Dysentery and Typhoid than on the battlefield.
The mortality rate for British soldiers in WWI was 1/10 yet infant mortality rates in London before the War were 1/5.
So, are the deaths given by Imperial all that significant compared to normal mortality rates?
What were health and hygiene standards like at the time among Celts?
What were their infant mortality rates?

In the 1300's the Black Death killed 1/3 of the population of Europe. It took 100 to 150 years for the population to recover. During that recovery period from Archeological evidence we know the majority of people were better fed, housed and healthier than they had been before. When the population reached its pre-plague level the majority of people went back to being half starved, disease ridden peasants living in hovels.
Could having half a Million dying on the battlefield have meant more or better quality of food for those left alive and a temporary reduction in infant mortality rates?

On a wider topic; when people have money they have freedom to experiment. In 1348 the Black death reached its peak. The Portuguese experimented with Ships and Sails to produce the Caravel. Christopher Columbus used Caravels to sail to America in 1451, almost 100 years after 1348. The Spanish redesigned them into Galleons to carry Gold back from America and the English redesigned them to be longer and faster for raiding the Spanish Ships. A trend that resulted in the Frigates of the 1700's, the age of Pirates and Victory in the 7years War making the British Empire the biggest in the World at the time.

The death of all those Celts and the freeing of all that land and wealth for Rome Probably had the same effect.

 

[Godd_Howard]

What were health and hygiene standards like at the time among Celts?
What were their infant mortality rates?

Not as bad as in a filthy victorian city as far as I know. The population density wasn't too high. And the myth that everyone went around covered in mud all day is also pretty dumb, people knew water exists back then. That's why they lived on rivers. There are a bunch of celtic tirbes named Veneti(veins, rivers look like veins idk something like that)

 

[imperial.]

There are other aspects to consider.

In the 1300's the Black Death killed 1/3 of the population of Europe. It took 100 to 150 years for the population to recover. During that recovery period from Archeological evidence we know the majority of people were better fed, housed and healthier than they had been before. When the population reached its pre-plague level the majority of people went back to being half starved, disease ridden peasants living in hovels.
Could having half a Million dying on the battlefield have meant more or better quality of food for those left alive and a temporary reduction in infant mortality rates?


The death of all those Celts and the freeing of all that land and wealth for Rome Probably had the same effect.

Not as bad as in a filthy victorian city as far as I know. The population density wasn't too high. And the myth that everyone went around covered in mud all day is also pretty dumb, people knew water exists back then. That's why they lived on rivers. There are a bunch of celtic tirbes named Veneti(veins, rivers look like veins idk something like that)

That's a good point. I wonder Just how well their quality of life would be when everyone was trapped together in a besieged fortified Iron Age settlement with no access to food or water, Siege bombardments day and night, dead people rotting on the streets after having all their supply lines cut by Roman Armies outside.

That's a fast way to rid of a large populace with disease, starvation and famine without having to get into much armed conflict with the villagers. And for Rome that would be a rinse, repeat process.

They were also known as shown with Viriato to organize large peaceful meetings with the locals and Ambush stack wipe them. Viriato was a little kid and one of the few surviving from one. So with these kinds of methods the casualty rate could indeed be raised.

If you had 10,000 warriors per tribe and a hypothetical 100 tribes that's your million picked off with divide and conquer tactics in different campaigns & varies wars.

We know what happened when the Belgae coalition met Julius Caeser, he could not match nor beat them and they drove him off. So when they went back home and dispersed he picked off their armies one by one from behind before targeting the Settlements.

 

[Nak'Arosh]

Thanks for you excellent topic. People like to praise Empires, but forgot the atrocities that they made to reach their aims.

I'm not exactly sure but the Achaemenid Empire was at least the must free from this kind of approach with other nation, even when we look to the movie of 300 that despise them as monster is incorrectly.

But come back to Rome, people still think that Gauls/Celt were the 'Barbarian' style of people who not know nothing. As we see in I:R game, they barely can do any damage to Rome, which is incorrectly, Rome lost many battle/wars against them even with Marian Reforms. They style of war were very organized as described by Julius Caesar. But they were still considered by some German tribes as weaker than the German Tribes. The approach of Rome with they Disciplined Legion and use of many terrible actions made them prevail over their enemy.
And that why Gaius Julius Arminiu gave a response to Rome about their steps on Magna Germania.

I don't remember if in Gauls or Celt-Iberian had so many revolt or rebellions. Most of them were from slaves, because slaves were the base of Rome Nation. What i'm saying if that rebellion or revolt were from nobles, citizen gauls/celts.

 

[DukeLeto42]

What were their infant mortality rates?

There's a lot of minor variation, but 50% by the age of 15 is a solid rule of thumb for all societies without access to reasonably modern healthcare systems.

During that recovery period from Archeological evidence we know the majority of people were better fed, housed and healthier than they had been before. When the population reached its pre-plague level the majority of people went back to being half starved, disease ridden peasants living in hovels.

We know that their wages improved. To what degree their health and quality of life improved... well, given that a paper was given at the 2021 ICMS not two weeks ago arguing that there is no real evidence of improvement, I'd say that's a matter of some debate.

On a wider topic; when people have money they have freedom to experiment. In 1348 the Black death reached its peak. The Portuguese experimented with Ships and Sails to produce the Caravel. Christopher Columbus used Caravels to sail to America in 1451, almost 100 years after 1348. The Spanish redesigned them into Galleons to carry Gold back from America and the English redesigned them to be longer and faster for raiding the Spanish Ships. A trend that resulted in the Frigates of the 1700's, the age of Pirates and Victory in the 7years War making the British Empire the biggest in the World at the time.

This is a bit of a stretch. The arrival of exploration and expansion was the result of a number of factors, among them:

• Longstanding markets for trade goods from the east and a desire to improve access to them, including the late 13th century Marco Polo expedition and of course the Caffa settlement (which is likely the primary port through which the Black Death reached Europe)
• Improvements to shipbuilding, in part as a result of the explosion of trade in the 13th and first half of the 14th century, as well as access to crucial navigational technologies (and administrative ones, too - paper recordkeeping, compasses, armiliary spheres)
• More centralized kingdoms that could fund expeditions
• The rise of the Ottomans, putting a massive (and often hostile) middleman between Europe and the east

 

[Phili]

We know that their wages improved. To what degree their health and quality of life improved... well, given that a paper was given at the 2021 ICMS not two weeks ago arguing that there is no real evidence of improvement, I'd say that's a matter of some debate.

True but from bones and teeth we know their diet was better than it had been for earlier generations. That would have produced health benefits and longer lifespans.
From building remains we know the quality of buildings improved.
All those improvements vanished when the population reached its pre-plague levels.
For colonists who travelled to the new Lands in America those improvements remained until, well; sort of about now ish.
The English colonies in America doubled in size of population and economy every 16 years. By 1776 when the English colonies had their little tiff with the home country the population and economy was about 1/4 the size of England's which suggests independence was on the cards even if the War of independence hadn't happened.

the world is run by bullies.
Empires are built by bullies.
There is a simple reason why the Roman and British Empires were the biggest of their time.
When Dr Who beats the Daleks the English might be cheering the doctor but at heart they are the Daleks.

 

[DukeLeto42]

True but from bones and teeth we know their diet was better than it had been for earlier generations. That would have produced health benefits and longer lifespans.
From building remains we know the quality of buildings improved.

Right so I'm looking for the evidence you're citing, and I'm finding so far one study from 2014 on a London cemetery (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096513). That's not a fantastic body of evidence, and like I said very recent studies have called into question major demographic changes post-Black Death. Demographic impacts beyond the level of wage size are still in debate.