This is a question I have a hard time articulating, but if anyone with expertise has any insight or reading recommendations, I would appreciate it!
When I watch documentaries or read about history, I can’t help but wonder if most people were affected by / aware of what is being described. The big thing that sparked this was when I looked at a map-over-time of empires in the middle east in ancient to classical times. New empires invaded every few years! Would poor farmers have known about that? What would have changed? I guess if you were a soldier or your village was burned down, you would know…
Random and poorly worded bonus questions I have had. Im sure the answers vary a lot from culture to culture, and maybe some are unanswerable:
Were most people in history poor farmers? Or did lots of people in ancient and classical times live in cities?
Without print media / high literacy, did people know what was going on / who was ruling them?
Did average people take participate in religion and art? Did people decorate their homes? Were average people devoutly religous? Places that come to mind are ancient Egypt and ancient Greece - with such complex traditions, did most people know the stories and characters? Did average people way back in China or Japan practice Buddhism?
Would life ever change when a fancy new empire came into town?
History seems to be told a lot in terms of trade (or so I learned from Crash Course World History haha) - did average / poor people engage in that? Would a normal person living in rural Turkey have a silk scarf from China?
Thanks for reading! I hope this post is not too much of a mess, I love subs like this and think they are really valuable
The question(s) you're asking is/are quite broad due to the enormity of the area and the timespan you're interested in. I'm most knowledgeable about ancient Rome so I will try and cover that as you are inquiring about ancient and classical times.
Bonus question 1: In general most people were simple farmers, we're talking like 90% here, and most lived in the countryside. From these people most soldiers were drawn for the armies, and many veterans were given land at the end of their service meaning they would go back to farming later in life. Rome certainly was an exception to all of this and was unique in many ways. At its height it had about a million inhabitants and only managed to sustain that number due to a continuous influx of migrants as mortality in the city was quite high (largely in part due to diseases such as malaria, which was endemic to the region). But as I said, it was unique in many ways, and while it certainly housed a vast number of people, most still lived in small villages in the countryside.
Main question / Bonus question 2 & 4: While true that many people could not read, that did not mean that they could not absorb information. The Romans had a vast network of roads that spanned the entirety of their empire which allowed for increased mobility and thus shortened temporal distances between villages/cities. Travelers such as merchants, soldiers, or farmers would have been frequent and word of mouth of major events would have spread quite fast. A village would have to be really isolated to not learn of major events within a few months of their happening. Furthermore the ruling elite would make sure that important information was spread across the empire. Think of things like new laws that were instituted. They were often inscribed on slabs or even on metal plates if they were really important, and the spread across the empire and installed in various cities and villages. While most people would not be able to read, those who could would inform the rest of the population and information would spread quickly. The ascension of a new emperor for example would be information that spread quickly, as the new regime would attempt to soldify their grasp on the empire and legitimize their rule. Most people would certainly know who ruled over them, but in many cases such information was uninteresting. Unless specific laws were enacted that affected their lives directly, or wars were waged that touched their own homes, they would care little for whichever emperor lorded over them. Some were more popular than others of course, as some emperors attempted to curry favor with the people by paying out large sums of money, throwing feasts and parties, or even cancelling debts. As such some new emperors were viewed with distaste, as they overthrew a popular ruler, or immediately became popular as they brought benefits to the general population. An interesting example I can give is the emperor Domitian. While he was hated by the senatorial elite, he was likely popular with the population as he ran a tight ship and halted a lot of corruption that was going on in the provinces. His death was met with joy from the senate, but was likely viewed with sadness by the people (even though Suetonius might claim otherwise, his account of Domitian is wholly untrustworthy, as are those of Tacitus and Pliny).
I won't attempt to answer questions 3 and 5 as they are outside the scope of my knowledge.