Why 536 Was 'the Worst Year To Be Alive' (sciencemag.org) 146
Ask medieval historian Michael McCormick what year was the worst to be alive, and he's got an answer: "536." Not 1349, when the Black Death wiped out half of Europe. Not 1918, when the flu killed 50 million to 100 million people, mostly young adults. But 536. From a report: In Europe, "It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year," says McCormick, a historian and archaeologist who chairs the Harvard University Initiative for the Science of the Human Past. A mysterious fog plunged Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into darkness, day and night -- for 18 months. "For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year," wrote Byzantine historian Procopius. Temperatures in the summer of 536 fell 1.5C to 2.5C, initiating the coldest decade in the past 2300 years. Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record "a failure of bread from the years 536-539." Then, in 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, in Egypt. What came to be called the Plague of Justinian spread rapidly, wiping out one-third to one-half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire and hastening its collapse, McCormick says. Historians have long known that the middle of the sixth century was a dark hour in what used to be called the Dark Ages, but the source of the mysterious clouds has long been a puzzle. Now, an ultraprecise analysis of ice from a Swiss glacier by a team led by McCormick and glaciologist Paul Mayewski at the Climate Change Institute of The University of Maine (UM) in Orono has fingered a culprit. At a workshop at Harvard this week, the team reported that a cataclysmic volcanic eruption in Iceland spewed ash across the Northern Hemisphere early in 536. Two other massive eruptions followed, in 540 and 547. The repeated blows, followed by plague, plunged Europe into economic stagnation that lasted until 640, when another signal in the ice -- a spike in airborne lead -- marks a resurgence of silver mining, as the team reports in Antiquity this week.
Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst year to be alive "in Europe". I was hanging out in Africa at that time and it was pretty cool there, until the Europeans showed up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Africa was pretty cool at the time? I guess, if you liked tribal warfare, women treated as lesser beings, low life expectancy, and diseases that made your face melt.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except you had war between city and nation states, women did have some enshrined rights, and legal rights on their own, life expectancy was in your 50's not your 30's, and diseases that made your face melt off really didn't exist. The very worst was the plague, everything else was crippling to infertility wrapped in a bundle of terror and doom.
Re: (Score:2)
The status of women was not uniform in either Africa or Europe. (It still isn't.)
That said, Germanic and Norse women did have more rights. Possibly due to the fading memory of the Vanir. I'm not sure about the Gauls. And ... I guess I have to say Italian ... women had more rights than the Greek women. OTOH, the Byzantine Empire was largely Greek culture, and they had forgotten the rights claimed by Spartan women. (Also the Byzantine government was largely ruled by a bureaucracy of eunuchs, and in most
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, other than that and the lions, it was pretty cool.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Many people assume Africa must have always been similar to, or even less developed than what we see today. But what we see today is heavily shaped by colonialism. Historically, Africa was home to many advanced and fabulously wealthy empires. Mansa Musa, Emperor of Mali accidentally crashed the Egyptian economy just by giving them gifts. The first real university was built in Africa, as any player of Sid Meier's Civilization can attest. Women were much more respected as scholars in early Islam than they are today, especially in parts of northern Africa.
In short, educate yourself before assuming that any part of the world was the same in 500AD as it is now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Funny you should say that, when Islam didn't even exist yet in the 6th century.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny you should comment on that, as I said "early Islam" not "Islam in the 6th century." In any case, Muhammad was born in 570AD so you are fucking well splitting hairs here and you know it. Why? What's your point? Are you so ideologically biased you can't stand to hear one non derogatory word about Islam?
Re: (Score:2)
Present day Islam sucks, so what? What's your point?
Yeah, maybe you think I'm defending Islam and will be shocked and appalled by your comments? Not so much. I think all religions are equally goofy, but interesting from a historical point of view.
Your comment is simply a non sequiter, predicated on a false idea that I'll be offended. Sorry to disappoint. If you'd like to discuss what I was discussing, be my guest, but this tangent really doesn't interest me.
Re: (Score:2)
The empires you speak of were all coastal. Central Africa was full of sleeping-sickness, and northern Africa was plagued by malaria. Where the tse-tse fly roamed, there was no civilization. Malaria is now worse, and sleeping-sickness almost forgotten, but sleeping-sickness was worse. (Partially, admittedly, because of the development of the sickle-cell mutation, which allowed the heterozygous to live nearly normal lives.)
Re: (Score:2)
wait a second, that's africa now.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hanging out in Africa at that time and it was pretty cool there, until the Europeans showed up.
You had me until that part ...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, even I got bored typing that one.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Hilariously ignorant that you say that.
Maybe check out the Baqt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Baqt is a 7th century treaty confirming as part of a collection of demands by a conquering Arab army made on the Christian Kingdom of Nubia the provision of hundreds of slaves annually. You really think a thriving economy wasn't going on before that? Or this was the only such treaty?
Honestly, I get a little sick of everything from pundits to serious academics acting like Europe was some sort of unique cesspool of war, slavery, disease, and villainy. Suggesting that "whites were particularly the worst" is basically JUST as racist and ignorant as claiming that "blacks are violent criminals" today.
People are people. White, black, yellow, whatever. There are saints, and there are assholes. Whites didn't have a monopoly on virtue, nor did they either have a monopoly on vice. Slavery, brutal genocidal wars, cruelty, inhumanity, savagery - all existed and flourished across history, forever, everywhere. Life was simply cheaper. (cf Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of our Nature" https://www.amazon.com/Better-... [amazon.com] )
The reason the African slave trade was a thing was because when whites finally showed up, THERE WAS ALREADY A FLOURISHING SLAVE ECONOMY IN PLACE (mainly run by Arab slavers who'd been - as mentioned - working there for CENTURIES). And Europeans had the technological expertise to hideously commoditize it.
"Hi we're the Portuguese, we just showed up. Got any gold we can steal from you?"
"Um, not really, but we have slaves, want some?"
"Well, we don't really have a slave based economy in Europe..."
"Dude, they're REALLY cheap. All these African kings, see, they have these super-primitive militaries so people don't really die so much but they're constantly capturing piles of people and then they sell them to us for like, beads and junk."
"Well.....we're going to have a bunch of horrendous mines and plantations in the new world, yeah, I guess we'll take all you can provide!"
"Do we need to drop-ship some to America then?"
"Nah, man, not yet. They won't really even show up as a slave economy until the last 50 years or so at the end, and only get something like 3-5% of the slaves you ship out, but everyone will pretty much blame THEM for the whole thing. Nobody'll even REMEMBER that we sent 97% to meat-grinder deaths in the Caribbean and South America. It's a pretty sweet deal for us."
Re: (Score:2)
It's a joke, snowflake. I was going to say "South America" originally. Oh yeah, but Europe DID start two world wars, so the rest of us aren't so sure of you folks.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know if it is either funny or sad that y'all slavery fans don't even know history when you spew garbage like this, "They won't really even show up as a slave economy until the last 50 years or so at the end"
Slaves transported to America:
1620–1700.....21,000 ..........597,000
1701–1760....189,000
1761–1770.....63,000
1771–1790.....56,000
1791–1800.....79,000
1801–1810....124,000
1810–1865.....51,000
Total
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From my understanding the slave trade was dwindling in the last 50 years not because slavery wasn't profitable or prevalent, but because there were so many already here procreating that there was little need to actually import more slaves from Africa.
I haven't been able to locate exact numbers of slaves born into bondage in the US, however in the 1860 census there were 3,462,920 slaves living in the US. Even if that was every slave that had ever lived in the country (hardly possible given that slaves had b
Re: (Score:2)
Well slave importation was banned in 1808. While certainly some were smuggled, basically after that point it was only domestic reproduction which was pretty heinous anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what your point is.
So 600,000 slaves were shipped to America...out of 12 MILLION that were shipped to the new world. Around 5 %. 95% went and suffered far worse conditions in the Caribbean and South America.
I said "they don't even show up until a slave ECONOMY until 50 years from the end. OBVIOUSLY slaves were a part of American society (they were a part of nearly every society in the world) before that, But it was the invention of the cotton gin and the vast increase in needed labor that made
Re: (Score:2)
You need to study a bit of history. There are lots of locally dominant groups that decided to try to take on the entire world, and that are other lots who just kept finding a new enemy right across the new border.
There are a few that reached a point where they said "this is enough". Possibly historical records are biased and that's really the majority, but that's not the majority we have records of. Most of the ones we have records of, once they started expanding, tried to keep expanding until they were
Re: (Score:3)
While you're right that this history is eurocentric, it likely is not limited there. First, TFA does talk about the volcanic output traveling into the Middle East and Asia. I'd be curious to know if there is data to suggest similar hardships at least in India, if not in parts of China. Secondly, at least to my inexpert mind, it seems that a disaster large enough to envelope Europe should be large enough to have some kind of global impact. After all, El Niño supposedly affects the entire world despite i
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure. Maybe we can check the Wayback Machine to see what it was like at the time. I think MySpace was around then.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, riding the unicorns that farted rainbows and peace and love through fields of pretty flowers for all your fellow brethren who lived in a war free, slave free utopia of cooperation, compassion, and understanding.
Correction: Roman port of Pelusium, Egypt (Score:2)
Unless for you the continent of Africa is this stereotypical Jungle village where everyone lives happy together with the lions, zebras and monkeys; and not this huge continent 3 times the size of Europe or the US with incredible varied climates, Flora and Fauna.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling me that The Lion King isn't what Africa is like? Damn. I'm off to cancel my trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... The cartoon or the Broadway show?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither. Disney was finally able to correct the mistakes of both with their recent live action The Lion King documentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you did die, but you came back to life.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest positive impact of the cooling that started in 536 was not in Africa but in Arabia.
The cooler climate and rain improved grazing and helped the population grow. Trade flourished. The economy prospered.
A few decades later a dude named Mohammed was born there. Both his religion and his empire took advantage of the population and economic growth, and rapidly expanded along the trade routes. They soon fell upon the Persian and Eastern Roman Empires, which were weakened by plague and war. The Persian Empire was destroyed, and the Eastern Roman Empire was fatally weakened. The Arabic Empire soon stretched from China [wikipedia.org] to central France [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All in all, the Arabian Empire was the most advanced political entity of its time, and it's what managed to preserve the cultural production of the Greeks and Romans when the Roman Empire collapsed. This of course accompanied by many scientific advances of its own, i.e. in astronomy and mathematics.
So yes, without Islam you wouldn't know of Plato, Pythagoras, Homer, Euclid...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So yes, without Islam you wouldn't know of Plato, Pythagoras, Homer, Euclid..."
We don't know this. For all we know, our currently line of history is worse off. Think of all the philosophers we don't know due to Islam!
if the Roman Empire hadn't collapsed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You view the rise of Islam as positive?
It was positive for the Arabs. Before Mohammed, the Arab tribes were living in an irrelevant hinterland, subjugated by Persians, Greeks, Romans, and then Persians again. For them, Islam changed everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on now. You will be stone cold any minute now...
Life was nasty, brutish and short (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much up until modern medicine and democracy came about. 536 might have been the worst year but I wouldn't have wanted to be anyone other than someone in the aristoracy or royalty at any time up until maybe 1900. And even the aristoracy suffered and died like everyone else when disease came calling.
Re:Life was nasty, brutish and short (Score:4, Funny)
Plus they didn't even have Amazon Prime and had to wait a week for their packages.
Re: (Score:3)
A week?!?!?! Dude as recently as the 90's I remember just about every mail in order service saying "Please allow 6-8 weeks for delivery.".
Re: (Score:3)
I think in some cases the aristocracy almost had it worse, as they had the money to buy the most quackish of quackery from bearded experts who wanted to pump them full of mercury or bleed them out.
It might not have been that bad if you were living in some agrarian community, with some caveats -- far enough off the beaten path that you weren't sacked or raided or constantly called up for military service, but close enough that you had some access to trade goods.
In the right location, you might have a decent
Re: (Score:2)
> Medicine wouldn't have been great, but in an agrarian community you might have had access to some reasonable folk/herbal medicine.
I think it is kinda funny how bad medicine has been. For as much as we look down at the folk and herbal medicine back in the day. at the worst is was a poison and kill you regardless, mostly a placebo doing nothing, and at best it would help. Modern medicine certainly had it's growing pains.
I remember reading about stories right around industrialization/Civil War (too advanc
Re: (Score:3)
Western medicine didn't really improve until the more widespread use of opium. It was actually useful to control diarrhea -- a history of opium I read claimed it saved more lives in the 19th century than any other medicine before or since other than antibiotics due to its ability to control diarrhea.
But at least opium provided relief from pain even if it did nothing to actually cure anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly modern medicine, the plagues were far more bloody than the wars. And if it wasn't plague then you could easily die from contaminated water, food poisoning, tetanus and many other afflictions related to hygiene, including that of those treating the sick. Before 1846 doctors would go straight from autopsies to delivering babies [npr.org] without washing their hands. Today we would reel in horror if anyone did that but they didn't know any better and didn't have very effective disinfectants or the scientific rigo
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at those assumptions, which by the way, were developed as an excuse for colonialism. Basically, people were saying "Yeah, colonialism may suck but life without us ruling over you was nasty, brutish, and short."
Was life nasty? Through most of our hunter gatherer phase, it was not. It was a life of leisure, with most folks working less than three hours per day for their sustenance. Agriculture did not bring ease, just the opposite. What it brought was a surplus that could be stored for the future.
Re: (Score:2)
no weapons that were specialized for killing humans.
That is irrelevant. Today, weapons that are specialized for killing humans are notable either for being designed to kill many humans (fully automatic, or explosive) or for actually being more concealable and/or less powerful than weapons designed for killing animals (pistols).
Nomadic people wouldn't have weapons designed specifically for killing humans only because they didn't have technology that would specifically suit that purpose. From the target's perspective, it doesn't really make any difference. The
Re:Life was nasty, brutish and short (Score:5, Interesting)
My point being that there was no organized warfare. What warfare there was, was more like an extreme sport than war. Sure, people got hurt or even killed, but that wasn't the main point of it all. Showing off for the ladies was the point, and giving your opponent a good non-lethal whack with a stick while not being whacked yourself. Counting coup was more important than killing anyone.
There were clubs, and bows, and flint knives and that's about it. No swords, no armor, no warrior class, no armies, no troops, nothing. Also, no walls. And no mass graves older than about 8,000BC. Warfare as we know it could only be practiced after the development of agriculture.
There are definitely differences between war spears and hunting spears, as with any other weapon. You mention the crossbar, but, for example, the Greek throwing spear was designed to bend when it stuck in a shield, hampering mobility. The point is, you don't see those differences arise until relatively recently, about 5,000BC in most places.
As another example, a sword has no purpose except killing humans. You don't hunt with a sword, you don't cook with it, you don't use it to make other tools. It is a specialized weapon.
Sure you can make an argument that people used non specialized weapons, but what you really don't ever see, is armor. If warfare were really endemic to early humans, you'd think there would be some sort of preserved armor, but there isn't until after the development of agriculture. Hunter gatherers had no surplus to support a warrior class, and no permanent home to defend.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can make an argument that people used non specialized weapons, but what you really don't ever see, is armor. If warfare were really endemic to early humans, you'd think there would be some sort of preserved armor,
They didn't have steel yet, there was very little metal in general, and they didn't build extravagant graves. They would have had to depend primarily on fire-hardened leather, or wood splints, and it wouldn't have been placed where it would be preserved... and a spear would go right through it. So would an arrow. There just wasn't much point to armor until people settled down.
Hunter gatherers had no surplus to support a warrior class, and no permanent home to defend.
Sure, but there was still stuff to fight over. No permanent home is the big deal, though.
Re: (Score:3)
No permanent home to fight over is actually the lesser deal. No surplus is a deal breaker for real war, as opposed to tribal "smack the guys from the next valley on their heads and take their women" style tribal conflict. You can't expect any sort of large army to live off the land when there is no agriculture. The land can only support a few humans, gathering large armies would be impossible. As would any sort of long distance travel. There would be no specialists who dedicate their lives to armed conflict
Re: (Score:3)
And no amount of calling things that are not actual democracies a democracy will change the facts.
You need to learn what the word "democracy" means. And no, it doesn't mean "everyone participates in every decision". Most democracies are governed by elected representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
With the truth* having to battle against fake news and alternative facts, and the gullible populus believing conspiracy theories under every grain of sand it's extremely doubtful that a true democracy would work.
Do you actually think that members of congress are any less prone to believing fake news and conspiracy theories? They are probably just as susceptible if not more so. Their only real skills are schmoozing rich donors and winning a popularity contest with everyone else. The only problem I see with a direct democracy is the time commitment but that could easily be solved if you have a floating proxy vote where I could give my proxy vote to whoever I felt like for the day/issue. Basically, let me tie my
Re:Life was nasty, brutish and short (Score:5, Insightful)
> This means that in some form a majority will is present.
Generally speaking this is present in most modern democracies. European nations want more social programs and safety nets. While the US disagrees on what it wants so change is slow by design.
> Because they think they are in a democracy and realize that their words are not being heard
No, it's because people disagree. Every system of government can work if everyone agrees. It's disagreement that causes problems. Do you think Brexit would be such an issue if remainers/brexiters agreed to the terms of what Brexit means initially following the vote? Both sides are claiming to represent the will of democracy.
Modern democracies have never claimed to be full democratic. It was always constitutional representative. For the US, it has always been a Republic. They claimed to have democratic institutions because democracy is flawed. Democracy and democratic institutions naturally confers legitimacy of the government so it is used as a reason to expand what institutions are democratic and how far democracy is allowed in the body politic. It's a political argument at the expense of prior government formation.
You are railing on about how people don't understand the system of government they live in and then some reason think that "if democracy existed and viable we wouldn't need government". Are people too stupid to know what kind of system they have or are they smart enough to have direct control of all aspects of the government through a vote?
> a faux democracy
Yes. Because democracy by itself is flawed because people are flawed. Group think, mob rule, tyranny of the majority are just a few examples. You even seem to acknowledge that people are fools "fooled into believing shit that is not real.". Democracy give those voters the same power of informed voter.
> the will of the people
The will of the people can be wrong. Does this really have to be explained to you?
You are either retarded or a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Are people too stupid to know what kind of system they have or are they smart enough to have direct control of all aspects of the government through a vote?
What I do know is that people don't have the time. Even parliaments of full-time representatives have sub-committees and they again have drafts and hearings and so on. And even if one person was able to read the countless thousands of pages of input, they'd still have no control over what's put to a vote only what to vote. If millions of people started suggesting changes, how would we triage them? How would we make sure it doesn't end up being a small minority of fanatics making laws by attrition? YouTube c
Re: (Score:2)
> you are describing what you want out of it
Using "democracy" to describe modern constitutional representative republics with democratic institutions is shorthand and well understood by everyone. You are being pedantic.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not being pedantic, I am trying to tell you that you are wrong. Democracy means something and you are busy watering down. By your definition of Democracy.... everything is a fucking democracy. You should like China... they have a democracy too! Too bad they all voted to have their government abuse them.
You can call it what you want, but at the end of the day... if the majority will is not winning out... it's just not a fucking democracy... no matter how much you need to beg and plead for it to
Re: (Score:2)
> Democracy means something and you are busy watering down.
I am lazy as I am sure most people are when describing government. It's easy and well understood what "modern democracy" is compared to "direct democracy" to "representative democracy" to "classical democracy" to "republic democracy". Yes, even the Chinese communist government has an element of democracy within the politburo.
If I had to type out Constitutional Federal Democratic Representative Republic when talking about government I would never
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.vocabulary.com/dic... [vocabulary.com]
"...someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way..."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dic... [vocabulary.com]
"Democracy"
"Whether you're talking a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, the big problem with democracy is we get the government we deserve. For example, in the USA, we've got a whole bunch of thoughtless asshats going to the polls to vote, so we get President Trump as a natural consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans were always able to live a long time, but surviving to that point was much more complicated. The chances of making it that far were much lower.
As far as the rest of your drivel, read a book
Re: (Score:2)
Are you high?
Re: (Score:2)
He's not wrong though, once you remove infant mortality and complications from child birth, the average life expectancy goes up considerably.
There's always been people living into their 70's and 80's -- not as frequently as now; but the ones who did were probably healthier than the 70+ year olds kicking around nursing homes in modern times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> If democracy actually existed and was viable... we would not need government.
This is wrong on so many levels.
Re: (Score:2)
The American solution was freedom. The European solution was having The People take over the dictator's detailed control over everything.
No, they are not the same, as evidenced by people around here wearing virtue signaling badges about how The People may safely wield censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
No.. it is dead right.
If the majority of people were capable of being good, decent, and honest then every time a major problem needed to be solves the majority of folks would gang press the minority into doing what needed to be done. Which, in and of itself is a problem.
This is why America espoused "liberty" as a founding principle... the idea that no government (democracy or otherwise) could oppress others. But no one cares about that any more. Everyone wants everyone else to follow how they think they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any year pre-1928 was the worst (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Any year pre-1928 was the worst (Score:4, Funny)
every year prior to 1928 was crappy.
I'm going with every year before indoor toilets being like that.
Re: (Score:2)
every year prior to 1928 was crappy.
I'm going with every year before indoor toilets being like that.
My dad recalls visiting relatives as a child in 1960s/70s Appalachia and having to use the outhouse. However, medival castles could have built-in toilets. Romans had indoor toilets as well I believe, and sometimes running water.
Re: (Score:2)
Your dad sounds like he's my age or a bit younger. And yes, I recall visiting relatives back then and having to use the outhouse....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah my dad was born in 1958 and grew up in very rural SC. They had an outhouse for a decent portion of his childhood. His parents/my grandparents had indoor plumbing by the time I came around, but they still heated their house and sometimes cooked using a wood burning stove (though my grandmother also had a propane stove as well). They also only ever had a single 13" black and white television that they watched until they passed (in 2003 for my grandfather and 2006 for my grandmother).
Re: (Score:2)
I remember visiting relatives in western Virginia in the 80's and needing to use the outhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Indoor toilets/plumbing have probably been around since ancient times [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It always baffles me when I heard people saying how they don't want to bring children into a world this terrible, when the living conditions today are basically the best in human history. Even poor people in modern times have it relatively good compared to ancient times. To some thing because things aren't perfect, they're terrible.
Not 1999? (Score:5, Funny)
How about 75,000BC (Score:5, Interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Found! Solution to global warming (Score:3)
Re:How about 75,000BC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
some estimates of number of breeding pairs goes much lower, maybe 100. Humanity was almost wiped out.
Favourite sign... (Score:3)
.. from during the Icesave conflict and Eyjafjallajökull eruption:
You Demanded Cash
There Is No 'C' In The Icelandic Language
You're Welcome
Re:Favourite sign... (Score:5, Informative)
(In case anyone's curious as to what volcano this was, I dug up the referenced paper [researchgate.net]. It's Eldgjá [google.is] (lit: "Fire Ravine"). Sort of the continuation between Katla (Eyjafjallajökull's "big sister" which hasn't erupted in quite a while) and Laki [wikipedia.org] (which caused an 1783-1784 catastrophe that nearly led to the abandonment of Iceland (20% human death rate / 80% sheep death rate, mainly from fluorosis) and caused the Mississippi to entirely freeze over at New Orleans / ice in the Gulf of Mexico / famine that killed 1/6th of Egypt's population / etc). Eldgjá is the largest volcanic canyon in the world and is best known for a 939 AD flood basalt eruption that was the largest known in the modern era (18 cubic kilometers).
536 was 'the Worst Year To Be Alive' (Score:5, Funny)
ok, DarkAger
Re: (Score:2)
Global Natural Disasters are not fun (Score:2)
Stuff like this is very likely marked by lot of violence that no one would probably want to live thou. At the end of the day, if there's only enough food for yourself to survive would you give you life to family, friends or even community?
Re: (Score:2)
I would donate my food to Musk and Bezos because they are the only ones who can get us off this rock stuck in a gravity well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry you so dislike it here. By all means take off for the far more hospitable environment of Mars.
Missing a qualifier (Score:3)
Ask medieval historian Michael McCormick what year was the worst to be alive, and he's got an answer: "536." Not 1349, when the Black Death wiped out half of Europe. Not 1918, when the flu killed 50 million to 100 million people, mostly young adults. But 536.
So far. Give us time.
1000 year collapse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hastened the E Roman Empire's collapse? It lasted almost another 1000 years. I could go with "Started it's decline", but under Justinian it was expanding encompassing many W Roman Empire territories.
Was is right. This expansion came to an abrupt end with the death of Justinian and his great general Belisarius, followed by catastrophic contraction over the next 150 years. It was not just territorial decline, literacy dropped precipitously in Byzantium - the only real center of learning in the empire - as well. Our documentation of the period from 565 to about 750 is sparse (compared to before and after) - "dark age" in one of two remaining centers of western learning (Rome was the other).
It had ups and
How did coconuts get to medieval England? (Score:2)
And what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? [youtube.com]
Did they ever find out in 536?
Re: (Score:2)
Back then everyone drove Teslas.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a popular misconception that infant (usually really meaning early childhood) mortality entirely accounts for the shorter average lifespan in centuries past. In fact if you reached the age of 20 you still had a much shorter life ahead of you - in other words age-specific death rates were higher at every age.
During the Roman Empire if you lived to age 20 your remaining expected lifespan was 30 years, whereas today it is about 60.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it depended on your social class.
Among the upper classes living into the 70s was not at all unusual. Among the lower classes, 45 was old age. Of course, that's an over simplified snapshot, but it's not unreasonable.