> individual, and made laws to that end. Nevertheless, the Byzantines
could
> did in their back yard, drain swamps on private land, kill rare birds.
> Look at the size of government as well. The Byzantines had specific
laws,
> but we have specific laws covering everything. Consider food labeling.
> We live in a more complex society and complexity demands regulation. We
> have more regualtion by far.
>
I may quible as to the level of regulation our society "demands" (as
opposed to the level it experiences, which is, I agree, very high and
always increasing, because regulating lives=power over them). But this
isn't the forum for that. What the "Byzantines" (Romans) could and did do
tended to vary. In the City of Constantinople itself, things could be (at
times & depending on enfourcement) highly regulated, especially with
regards to trade/employment matters (most trades of any significance were
organized into tightly structured guilds, and watched over by the Eparch of
the city/Urban Prefect). What could and couldn't be sold and to whom
(especially with regards to silk, I.E. see Luitprand of Cremona's
complaints. . .but then that fop whined about everything). How things could
be produced, who could do what, what prices they could charge, etc. were
all tightly regulated. Which is one reason why cities that had loose
affiliations, but were not directly controled, by the Romans; I.E. early on
Amalfi, Venice, etc) tended to do better, over time, economically, than
thouse that were part of the Empire; they benifited from the (relatively)
greater economic development & prosperity of the Empire, while avoiding the
onerous regulations. For a modern comparison, compair the different
economic fates of Postwar Hong Kong and Great Britain, and the different
regulatory policies that were pursued in the heartland as opposed to the
city-state dependancy (which started in '48 with nothing but impoverished
refugees, while Britain was the 1st nation to industrialize).