| > That’s kind of my entire point. The overall quality of life is much better because of what we know. It's not much better, it could be much better. But on average it is not, compared to the living standards of the Planet Romans were much better of than many are today in the richest Country in the World. Besides, what really changed is the impact of war on the population, not much of the rest. And yes, medical advancements, which are not equally shared though, even though they should be a human right by now. > Because most things modern criminal organizations engage in were actually legal back then It was harder for them to be formed, it was mostly small bands of bandits outside the city walls. Weapons, for example, were very expensive and very much controlled. > which was structured a lot like the mafia organizations [citation needed] > Romans were generally pretty afraid of being kidnapped and sold into slavery even when traveling on land same thing happens in 2023 in Southern Italy to immigrants. It's just hidden from public opinion. OTOH not many people traveled on land back then, most were born and died in the same plot of land, without ever seeing nothing else in their lives. > In cities gangs and organized crime were certainly a huge issue in poorer parts of the city of Rome as far as we know. I happen to live in the place that was called Suburra, precisely were the Argiletum was. It was the part of the city dedicated to brothels and lower income classes in general, but also where Julius Caesar built his domus. So, you know, not the kind of neighbourhood one would bring their kids to, but if you think about it, is Downtown LA any better today? At least the Suburra was surrounded by some of the most important monuments and public services of the time and the most popular today (the Colosseum, the Capitolium, the Forum of Caesar, the Forum of Augustus, Trajan's Forum, the Quirinal Hill etc etc) Is there something as iconic in Downtown LA today? to counter balance being 12 times as dangerous as the national average. > A very weird position to take by you considering most people back in those days lived in such horribly abject conditions Is this really your argument? Who's the 8 year old boy, actually? you don't seem to understand the concept of context, yes, they were abject by modern standards, but they were a very high standard of living back then. And that standard was more equally distributed then, than it is today. |