Return to Answer

The Roman Forum was initially constructed in the 8th century BC (as a temple to Vesta), started hosting games sometime around the 4th century BC, and was continually rebuilt and upgraded until about 29 BC. So it can be fairly said that it was (somewhat organically) designed to service the entertainment needs of the capital of the Roman empire, home to somewhere under 250,000 people.

The problem after that is the city itself went into decline (some might say eclipse). By 350ish AD it was down to no more than 125,000 people. It was no longer the sole capital of the empire, and all the Egyptian grain deliveries that were sustaining its numbers had now been re-routed to Constantinople.

By the mid 6th century, it was controlled by the Ostrogoths, and was no longer larger than Constantinople. By the 8th, it was deemed so worthless that the Pope was left to run the city himself, and it had totally fallen off the map. Here's what Colin McEvedy said about it:

...Imperial Rome, had dwindled into a scattering of villages separated by rubble-strewn fields. Where once Augustus had fed a citizen body 300,000 strong, the Pope was hard put to find rations for a hundred.

I think his "100" here refers to the size of the Pope's retinue, not the size of Rome itself. However, the city didn't make his map for that date, which means it had less than 15,000 people. (It wasn't alone. No city in western Christendom was that size. They call it the Dark Ages for a reason.) It certainly was no longer of a size that required a stadium suitable for a city of 250,000. So basically, it fell into disuse because the entire city did.

A note on the numbers:

I used population figures from by Colin McEvedy (and I believe his partner Richard M. Jones). I like them because I know their source, they are well presented, and I can get them for most parts of the world for most of human history. The biggest drawback to them is that most of the research behind them was done prior to 1980.

There do appear to be another set of numbers for Roman population that are consitently in the neighborhood of 4x higher floating around the internet. I managed to track the source back to a paragraph in Luc-Normand Tellier's Urban World History. Wikipedia uses this in its Rome entry, whereupon it is spread throughout the Internet. Try as I might, I can't suss out where Tellier got his numbers though.

However, since the scale of the difference between the two sets of numbers stays the same, none of this really affects the argument I put forth in this answer, which was based on relative numbers, not absolute numbers.

The Roman Forum was initially constructed in the 8th century BC (as a temple to Vesta), started hosting games sometime around the 4th century BC, and was continually rebuilt and upgraded until about 29 BC. So it can be fairly said that it was (somewhat organically) designed to service the entertainment needs of the capital of the Roman empire, home to somewhere under 250,000 people.

The problem after that is the city itself went into decline (some might say eclipse). By 350ish AD it was down to no more than 125,000 people. It was no longer the sole capital of the empire, and all the Egyptian grain deliveries that were sustaining its numbers had now been re-routed to Constantinople.

By the mid 6th century, it was controlled by the Ostrogoths, and was no longer larger than Constantinople. By the 8th, it was deemed so worthless that the Pope was left to run the city himself, and it had totally fallen off the map. Here's what Colin McEvedy said about it:

...Imperial Rome, had dwindled into a scattering of villages separated by rubble-strewn fields. Where once Augustus had fed a citizen body 300,000 strong, the Pope was hard put to find rations for a hundred.

I think his "100" here refers to the size of the Pope's retinue, not the size of Rome itself. However, the city didn't make his map for that date, which means it had less than 15,000 people. (It wasn't alone. No city in western Christendom was that size. They used to call this early Medieval period "the Dark Ages" for a reason.) It certainly was no longer of a size that required a stadium suitable for a city of 250,000. So basically, it fell into disuse because the entire city did.

A note on the numbers:

I used population figures from by Colin McEvedy (and I believe his partner Richard M. Jones). I like them because I know their source, they are well presented, and I can get them for most parts of the world for most of human history. The biggest drawback to them is that most of the research behind them was done prior to 1980.

There do appear to be another set of numbers for Roman population that are consistently in the neighborhood of 4x higher floating around the internet. I managed to track the source back to a paragraph in Luc-Normand Tellier's Urban World History. Wikipedia uses this in its Rome entry, whereupon it is spread throughout the Internet. Try as I might, I can't suss out where Tellier got his numbers though.

However, since the scale of the difference between the two sets of numbers stays the same, none of this really affects the argument I put forth in this answer, which was based on relative numbers, not absolute numbers.

The Roman Forum was initially constructed in the 8th century BC (as a temple to Vesta), started hosting games sometime around the 4th century BC, and was continually rebuilt and upgraded until about 29 BC. So it can be fairly said that it was (somewhat organically) designed to service the entertainment needs of the capital of the Roman empire, home to somewhere under 250,000 people.

The problem after that is the city itself went into decline (some might say eclipse). By 350ish AD it was down to no more than 125,000 people. It was no longer the sole capital of the empire, and all the Egyptian grain deliveries that were sustaining its numbers had now been re-routed to Constantinople.

By the mid 6th century, it was controlled by the Ostrogoths, and was no longer larger than Constantinople. By the 8th, it was deemed so worthless that the Pope was left to run the city himself, and it had totally fallen off the map. Here's what Colin McEvedy said about it:

...Imperial Rome, had dwindled into a scattering of villages separated by rubble-strewn fields. Where once Augustus had fed a citizen body 300,000 strong, the Pope was hard put to find rations for a hundred.

I'm not entirely sure if 100 is an exaggeration, but not making his map means it had less than 15,000 people for sure. (It wasn't alone. No city in western Christendom was that size. They call it the Dark Ages for a reason.) It certainly was no longer of a size that required a stadium suitable for a city of 250,000. So basically, it fell into disuse because the entire city did.

A note on the numbers:

I used population figures from by Colin McEvedy (and I believe his partner Richard M. Jones). I like them because I know their source, they are well presented, and I can get them for most parts of the world for most of human history. The biggest drawback to them is that most of the research behind them was done prior to 1980.

There do appear to be another set of numbers for Roman population that are consitently in the neighborhood of 4x higher floating around the internet. I managed to track the source back to a paragraph in Luc-Normand Tellier's Urban World History. Wikipedia uses this in its Rome entry, whereupon it is spread throughout the Internet. Try as I might, I can't suss out where Tellier got his numbers though.

However, since the scale of the difference between the two sets of numbers stays the same, none of this really affects the argument I put forth in this answer, which was based on relative numbers, not absolute numbers.

The Roman Forum was initially constructed in the 8th century BC (as a temple to Vesta), started hosting games sometime around the 4th century BC, and was continually rebuilt and upgraded until about 29 BC. So it can be fairly said that it was (somewhat organically) designed to service the entertainment needs of the capital of the Roman empire, home to somewhere under 250,000 people.

The problem after that is the city itself went into decline (some might say eclipse). By 350ish AD it was down to no more than 125,000 people. It was no longer the sole capital of the empire, and all the Egyptian grain deliveries that were sustaining its numbers had now been re-routed to Constantinople.

By the mid 6th century, it was controlled by the Ostrogoths, and was no longer larger than Constantinople. By the 8th, it was deemed so worthless that the Pope was left to run the city himself, and it had totally fallen off the map. Here's what Colin McEvedy said about it:

...Imperial Rome, had dwindled into a scattering of villages separated by rubble-strewn fields. Where once Augustus had fed a citizen body 300,000 strong, the Pope was hard put to find rations for a hundred.

I think his "100" here refers to the size of the Pope's retinue, not the size of Rome itself. However, the city didn't make his map for that date, which means it had less than 15,000 people. (It wasn't alone. No city in western Christendom was that size. They call it the Dark Ages for a reason.) It certainly was no longer of a size that required a stadium suitable for a city of 250,000. So basically, it fell into disuse because the entire city did.

A note on the numbers:

I used population figures from by Colin McEvedy (and I believe his partner Richard M. Jones). I like them because I know their source, they are well presented, and I can get them for most parts of the world for most of human history. The biggest drawback to them is that most of the research behind them was done prior to 1980.

There do appear to be another set of numbers for Roman population that are consitently in the neighborhood of 4x higher floating around the internet. I managed to track the source back to a paragraph in Luc-Normand Tellier's Urban World History. Wikipedia uses this in its Rome entry, whereupon it is spread throughout the Internet. Try as I might, I can't suss out where Tellier got his numbers though.

However, since the scale of the difference between the two sets of numbers stays the same, none of this really affects the argument I put forth in this answer, which was based on relative numbers, not absolute numbers.

The Roman Forum was initially constructed in the 8th century BC (as a temple to Vesta), started hosting games sometime around the 4th century BC, and was continually rebuilt and upgraded until about 29 BC. So it can be fairly said that it was (somewhat organically) designed to service the entertainment needs of the capital of the Roman empire, home to somewhere under 250,000 people.

The problem after that is the city itself went into decline (some might say eclipse). By 350ish AD it was down to no more than 125,000 people. It was no longer the sole capital of the empire, and all the Egyptian grain deliveries that were sustaining its numbers had now been re-routed to Constantinople.

By the mid 6th century, it was controlled by the Ostrogoths, and was no longer larger than Constantinople. By the 8th, it was deemed so worthless that the Pope was left to run the city himself, and it had totally fallen off the map. Here's what Colin McEvedy said about it:

...Imperial Rome, had dwindled into a scattering of villages separated by rubble-strewn fields. Where once Augustus had fed a citizen body 300,000 strong, the Pope was hard put to find rations for a hundred.

I'm not entirely sure if 100 is an exaggeration, but not making his map means it had less than 15,000 people for sure. (It wasn't alone. No city in western Christendom was that size. They call it the Dark Ages for a reason.) It certainly was no longer of a size that required a stadium suitable for a city of 250,000. So basically, it fell into disuse because the entire city did.

A note on the numbers:

I used population figures from by Colin McEvedy (and I believe his partner Richard M. Jones). I like them because I know their source, they are well presented, and I can get them for most parts of the world for most of human history. The biggest drawback to them is that most of the research behind them was done prior to 1980.

There do appear to be another set of numbers for Roman population that are consitently in the neighborhood of 4x higher floating around the internet. I managed to track the source back to a paragraph in Luc-Normand Tellier's Urban World History. Wikipedia uses this in its Rome entry, whereupon it is spread throughout the Internet. Try as I might, I can't suss out where Tellier got his numbers though.

However, since the scale of the difference between the two sets of numbers stays the same, none of this really affects the argument I put forth in this answer, which was based on relative numbers, not absoulte numbers.

The Roman Forum was initially constructed in the 8th century BC (as a temple to Vesta), started hosting games sometime around the 4th century BC, and was continually rebuilt and upgraded until about 29 BC. So it can be fairly said that it was (somewhat organically) designed to service the entertainment needs of the capital of the Roman empire, home to somewhere under 250,000 people.

The problem after that is the city itself went into decline (some might say eclipse). By 350ish AD it was down to no more than 125,000 people. It was no longer the sole capital of the empire, and all the Egyptian grain deliveries that were sustaining its numbers had now been re-routed to Constantinople.

By the mid 6th century, it was controlled by the Ostrogoths, and was no longer larger than Constantinople. By the 8th, it was deemed so worthless that the Pope was left to run the city himself, and it had totally fallen off the map. Here's what Colin McEvedy said about it:

...Imperial Rome, had dwindled into a scattering of villages separated by rubble-strewn fields. Where once Augustus had fed a citizen body 300,000 strong, the Pope was hard put to find rations for a hundred.

I'm not entirely sure if 100 is an exaggeration, but not making his map means it had less than 15,000 people for sure. (It wasn't alone. No city in western Christendom was that size. They call it the Dark Ages for a reason.) It certainly was no longer of a size that required a stadium suitable for a city of 250,000. So basically, it fell into disuse because the entire city did.

A note on the numbers:

I used population figures from by Colin McEvedy (and I believe his partner Richard M. Jones). I like them because I know their source, they are well presented, and I can get them for most parts of the world for most of human history. The biggest drawback to them is that most of the research behind them was done prior to 1980.

There do appear to be another set of numbers for Roman population that are consitently in the neighborhood of 4x higher floating around the internet. I managed to track the source back to a paragraph in Luc-Normand Tellier's Urban World History. Wikipedia uses this in its Rome entry, whereupon it is spread throughout the Internet. Try as I might, I can't suss out where Tellier got his numbers though.

However, since the scale of the difference between the two sets of numbers stays the same, none of this really affects the argument I put forth in this answer, which was based on relative numbers, not absolute numbers.