Questions About Empty Rome

So, during the Imperial era Rome got up above a million people (apparently even passing 1.6 million at times), however by the Medieval period the population fell as low as 17 000. What I was wondering is what was property ownership like? Did people clump in a few areas with most of the city empty, or did families claim whole city blocks for their own use? Was most of the city owned by the Church or something? It just seems fascinating to think about a city that built up and that empty.
 
From what I recall it was basically like a series of villages scattered around the ruins of the ancient city. A similar situation occured with Constantinople in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
 
Did people clump in a few areas with most of the city empty?

Mainly yes.
And scattered "castles" all around.
Also note that much of the Imperial built area relatively rapidly turned into either wilderness or cultivated fields - both interspersed with older remains, which were massively reused for new building (primarily churches). That would have made for some spectacular scenery actually, and indeed and Early Modern figurations (when population was much higher and Imperial remains much more depleted/eroded) show that much. While the impression you get in the massively built environment of today's Rome does not really compare (and a lot of it is quite ugly), you can still get a similar, albeit diluted, effect in some corners such as the Oppio Hill and parts of Via Flaminia.
However, the total people being there at any given moment were probably something more than you said, because in addition to residents you always had travellers, pilgrims, etc.
 
I think they were cluttered to wherever there was any commerce and political interaction [re Lateran Hill then the Vatican due to where the Papacy was quartered]. Still, it wasn't as thoroughly abandoned as Athens was for even more centuries.
 
Also note that much of the Imperial built area relatively rapidly turned into either wilderness or cultivated fields - both interspersed with older remains, which were massively reused for new building (primarily churches).
So it was rather like Detroit then?
 
Mainly yes.
And scattered "castles" all around.
Also note that much of the Imperial built area relatively rapidly turned into either wilderness or cultivated fields - both interspersed with older remains, which were massively reused for new building (primarily churches). That would have made for some spectacular scenery actually, and indeed and Early Modern figurations (when population was much higher and Imperial remains much more depleted/eroded) show that much. While the impression you get in the massively built environment of today's Rome does not really compare (and a lot of it is quite ugly), you can still get a similar, albeit diluted, effect in some corners such as the Oppio Hill and parts of Via Flaminia.
However, the total people being there at any given moment were probably something more than you said, because in addition to residents you always had travellers, pilgrims, etc.

If I recall correctly, some family (the Crescenti or the Frangipani, I can't recall) fortified the Colosseum during the bloody disputes for the Papal chair in the 10th Century. For people who can't grasp how huge the amphiteatre is: those aristocrats managed to build a citadel inside it... using the walls as curtain walls :eek: Also, I believe that the Island on the Tiber (Isola Tiberina) was fortified due to its significant strategical position inside the city of Rome.

Also, to the OP think its useful to point out that the Gothic War of the 6th Century resulted in the destruction of most of the acqueducts that provided water for the citizens. As the flow of water coming from the mountains was not actually impeded, the fluvial discharge accumulated for centuries produced some rather expansive swamps inside the Roman town, and diseases brought by mosquitos (mainly malaria, already presente in Italy since Ancient Era) were a very serious concern, so much that some Popes would invest resources in the draining of the wetlands.

If I recall correctly, the area around the Vatican - which in the context of Ancient Rome is located in a suburban area - grew in population as the importance of the Papacy rose in the High Middle Ages, and after the building of the Leonine Wall in the 9th Century.
 
If I recall correctly, some family (the Crescenti or the Frangipani, I can't recall) fortified the Colosseum during the bloody disputes for the Papal chair in the 10th Century. For people who can't grasp how huge the amphiteatre is: those aristocrats managed to build a citadel inside it... using the walls as curtain walls :eek: Also, I believe that the Island on the Tiber (Isola Tiberina) was fortified due to its significant strategical position inside the city of Rome.

Also, to the OP think its useful to point out that the Gothic War of the 6th Century resulted in the destruction of most of the acqueducts that provided water for the citizens. As the flow of water coming from the mountains was not actually impeded, the fluvial discharge accumulated for centuries produced some rather expansive swamps inside the Roman town, and diseases brought by mosquitos (mainly malaria, already presente in Italy since Ancient Era) were a very serious concern, so much that some Popes would invest resources in the draining of the wetlands.

If I recall correctly, the area around the Vatican - which in the context of Ancient Rome is located in a suburban area - grew in population as the importance of the Papacy rose in the High Middle Ages, and after the building of the Leonine Wall in the 9th Century.

Right on all counts. :) Although it worth noting that there is a Roman acqueduct, built under M. Vipsanius Agrippa's auspices, that brings water to parts of the city to this day and never ceased working. ;)
 
Top