Okay, you missed my point. I'll made it more clearer.Its like... comparing apples to nuclear weapons.
It's not because you have few watermills present on all a defined region( there the Roman Empire) they were widespread. Widespread would mean "present an all the provinces, all the regions" and not "having some exemples present from time to time".
And, where the debasement of currency, the disruption of trade are coming of?From my reading of history, the problems were not so much agricultural or climatological, but economic; the debasement of currency, disruption of trade, constant warfare
If it's not the sole explanation, the agricultural decline of Rome certainly is one of the major causes.
.Nothing is clear. Other than, statistically speaking, the Romans likely had more watermills than we've uncovered
And archeologically speaking and sources speaking they didn't. Statistics are really helping, except when they don't fit what we have.
Comparing the number of Roman watermills to Roman gunpowder is apples and oranges; we know that the Romans had watermills, the question is how many. Thats a very different question than whether or not they had gunpowder.
Not really. You assure me they had more mills than found or acknowledged because "hey, you COULD have some that we don't know". In the same set of mind some actually said "Hey, you COULD have gunpowder in Ancient Rome. After all we loose many mentions".
So, yes, maybe you had more watermills. But, basing ourself on what we actually found and have as mentions, you have only few.
Free for you to say "hey, maybe it was far more than we have". Why not?
But it's not fitting what we have for now.