bob bobato
L'imparfait
Who would you rather be? A poor person in the city of Rome, circa AD140, or a poor person in a modern, impoverished African nation?
Better off:Ancient Roman Poor or modern, afican poor
- Thread starter bob bobato
- Start date
You're going to have to define what you mean by "poor". And if you can specify a single city and a particular date for the Roman side, you're going to have to specify which African nation you're thinking of. Africa is rather a large continent with lots of countries.
Bast
Protector of Cats
Definitely Roman poor. I've seen Blood Diamond and that freaked me out.
Kraznaya
Princeps
Hmm, I think I'd rather be a guerilla than a slave.
If you compare the poor ancient Romans and the poor modern Africans, then of course the poor Africans would be better off. Even the very rich Romans don't have access to simple modern medicine and electricity.
But if you compare the poor Romans and the poor Africans against other people from their own time then the poor Romans would be better off in the ancient age than the poor Africans in the modern age. For a start, Roman society AFAIK isn't so based on consumerism as it is in the modern world, and also the Romans have the benefit of the stability of the (early) Roman empire. (but it also depends where in Africa you're talking about too. Life is not so good in Uganda or Somalia, but it's better in Egypt and Gabon, for instances)
But if you compare the poor Romans and the poor Africans against other people from their own time then the poor Romans would be better off in the ancient age than the poor Africans in the modern age. For a start, Roman society AFAIK isn't so based on consumerism as it is in the modern world, and also the Romans have the benefit of the stability of the (early) Roman empire. (but it also depends where in Africa you're talking about too. Life is not so good in Uganda or Somalia, but it's better in Egypt and Gabon, for instances)
Tomoyo
Fate
A poor ancient Roman would have no idea what electricity or modern medicine was and therefore wouldn't care.
And I assume poor means not a slave, and if you were in Rome, at least, you were kinda guaranteed free food around 140AD.
And I assume poor means not a slave, and if you were in Rome, at least, you were kinda guaranteed free food around 140AD.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
When I say africa, I mean the poor african countries thats being ravaged by aids, and where people have to walk miles to get to a well. Think of the africa in UNICEF programs, or when Oprah went to South Africa.
And free water, free entertainment, cheap education, cheap gyms, and sometimes free medicaire (And just so you know, some city slaves were rich, and many were well taken care of).
Bast
Protector of Cats
Poor does not mean slave!!
If you mean the annona system, I don't think anyone could have lived solely off that. The annona handouts were often not free in any case. They were intended to ensure that Rome got enough food overall; they were not intended to help the poor in particular.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Poor roman. 
bob bobato
L'imparfait
That doesn't mean the poor din't get the handouts.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
A famine is a famine whenever you face it.
If you mean survivably poor, I would take Kenya or Niger over Ancient Rome any day.
Now if you are talking about the combat zones?... That would be the recent eastern Congo or war-torn Uganda versus living through one of the sackings of Rome? That's a tough one.
I guess I would take the modern version of pretty much any direct comparison unless you compared being on the wrong side of a modern conflict with a living through a period of ancient peace. Darfur sounds absolutely hellish if you're not muslim.
If you mean survivably poor, I would take Kenya or Niger over Ancient Rome any day.
Now if you are talking about the combat zones?... That would be the recent eastern Congo or war-torn Uganda versus living through one of the sackings of Rome? That's a tough one.
I guess I would take the modern version of pretty much any direct comparison unless you compared being on the wrong side of a modern conflict with a living through a period of ancient peace. Darfur sounds absolutely hellish if you're not muslim.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,060
Actually Dafur is in part a racial conflict between arab muslims and black african muslims... the religious conflict in Sudan was the northern arab muslims against the southern black christians and animists.
And behind the convenient excuses of race and religion are also those old plagues that have beset mankind, power and wealth...
And behind the convenient excuses of race and religion are also those old plagues that have beset mankind, power and wealth...
Stolen Rutters
Deity
I apologize. I frequently confuse race wars with religious wars. I can't really tell them apart anymore.
edit - On second thought, that looked too sarcastic. I am being serious. I really can't tell them apart. They seem to both follow virtually identical paths over and over. New name, different place, same story. It doesn't matter the reason. - endedit
I would still take today. Even a normal life expectancy in ancient days rarely surpassed 30 y/o. At least you have half of a fair shake at 50 almost anywhere in the world today. We too often assume that we would be part of the aristocracy rather than a slave.
edit - On second thought, that looked too sarcastic. I am being serious. I really can't tell them apart. They seem to both follow virtually identical paths over and over. New name, different place, same story. It doesn't matter the reason. - endedit
I would still take today. Even a normal life expectancy in ancient days rarely surpassed 30 y/o. At least you have half of a fair shake at 50 almost anywhere in the world today. We too often assume that we would be part of the aristocracy rather than a slave.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
sorry, post came twice.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
If people rarely lived more than than 30 ears,than why did they say that Alexander died 'young',at 33 years? And many poor african countries have life expectancy for about 30 years.
Do life expectancy lists include unnnatural deaths and babies who died before their first birthday?
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Source?I have hundreds of examples (there was even a site only with the dates of birth and death of famous ancient people, but it's late and I can't find it right now).
Quick example: Pythagoras lived 89 years. And as mentioned above, Alexander "died young" at 33 years, and according to your theory he would have been above the average expectancy! And if you those are isolated examples, see how many people died at over 60 and how many died before 30.
In the Ancient age.Also, the life expectancy is not as high as 50 in all Africa, today. Have you ever heard about Biafra?
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Keep in mind that life expectance number is an average which refers to life expectance at born. Infant mortality was VERY high in ancient times, so life expectancy at born is low, however that does not mean that adults died commonly at 30. After passing childhood life expectance was much higher, not much lower that in developed countries at present. All this can be applied to many poor countries at present too.
Thorgaleeg is right. If you made it past childhood in antiquity, you had a pretty good chance of making it to about 60 or better. The average life expectancy seems low because so many people died very young.
