Hadrian’s Wall and economic development
I didn’t post anything yesterday - I was revisiting Hadrian’s Wall and Housesteads Fort (well worth the visit for history buffs) and the wireless broadband coverage at my hostelry was non-existent.
The Romans ruled Britain for 400 years (well, most of it). Hadrian’s Wall wasn’t there just to keep the Picts out; it was a customs barrier, taxing trade. At Housesteads, the tour guide made a very interesting comment. Before the Romans took over, Britain was a moderately prosperous farming and mining economy, but under the Romans the economy soared, thanks to infrastructure (Roman roads, safer water supply), trustworthy common currency, international trade with the rest of the empire, and the consistent and widespread rule of law. You’d think that 400 years of steady and consistent economic development would be incredibly robust, but no. In the economic history of Britain, the Roman period was an anomaly.
When the Romans left, the economy nose-dived, as narrow local interests broke the country apart and raiders like the Norse, Saxons and Angles found easy pickings.. It took another 700 years before the economy regained its scale (thanks to wool and the Normans).
Hopefully, economic development in the modern world is more robust, built as it is on other countries’ earlier development. But then, so was Britain’s in Roman times.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
When the Romans left, the economy nose-dived, as narrow local interests broke the country apart and raiders like the Norse, Saxons and Angles found easy pickings…
This is exactly what is happening in all of Africa. When the colonizers left (reasonably prosperous) and handed the power back to the indigenous, the majorities of those economies took a nose-dive. It’s been like that for last 40 years or so.