Mighty Rome

November 23, 2006

Moderners often ideolize ancient Rome by ascribing characteristics to the Empire which it never had. The Romans did build an impressive Empire, lasting many centuries and spanning almost six million square kilometers of land at its height. (For comparison, the entire North American continent is only 24 million square kilometers.) The Romans were able to build durable and imposing structures out of concrete, and supply massive cities with water from carefully engineered aqueducts. However, Rome was a society that made a name for itself through militarism and statesmanship rather than innovation; it produced very little on its own, merely absorbing what useful elements it could from nearby cultures. Even many of the things which are often ascribed to Roman creativity actually stem from Greece or Egypt, and the ancient Roman talent for government and law does not paint an entirely flattering picture of its people.

Note that the author of this work does not pretend to be well versed in history, so support for these claims will be limited to a series of quotes. As is always the case in circumstances where support for a position is drawn from a smattering of references rather than a broader understanding, the possibility exists that these quotes are unrepresentative of the complete picture; it is possible to create a distorted picture by reporting evidence selectively. However, most of this information is taken from wikipedia.com, and because of their policy of soliciting information from any and all users and requiring sources for any controversial claims, the articles there are usually in line with the majority opinion among academians. Those who distrust Wikipedia may simply skip to the analysis of Charles Murray, provided below.

Weren't the Romans innovative engineers?

Origins of Roman Engineering

Although the Romans are generally famous for their advanced engineering accomplishments, most of their own inventions were improvements on older ideas, concepts and inventions. Cement was originally invented in Egypt, although the Romans improved the formula. Technology for bringing running water into cities was also invented in the east. The architecture used in Rome was strongly influenced by Greek and Etruscan sources.

Did Romans invent cement?

Cement: Origins

The Egyptians discovered and used lime and gypsum mortar as a binding agent for building such structures as the Pyramids. This was far superior to the clay that had been used by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Greeks later improved on this recipe and finally the Romans produced a very durable hydraulic cement from pozzolanic ash and lime.

Did the Romans invent aqueducts?

Public Water Works

Public works were one of the greatest influences in Ancient Greece. They helped boost the economy, and acted as an art form, and they also led to a more sanitary life style. The system of planning the public works was invented by Hippodamus of Miletus, and was admired throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Cities were built according to this scheme and old towns were reconstructed to fit this system. The Greeks were proud of the establishment of the public works and spent a lot of money on it.

There were many ways to bring water into the city for people to use. Many great thinkers such as Archimedes, Hero, and Eupalinus discovered extraordinary ways to draw water more economically to the cities of Greece. Of all the many different inventions, there were three major inventions that made important contributions to the water supply of Greece. The three inventions are:

Archimedes' Screw - Archimedes, one of the greatest thinkers of ancient Greece, developed this invention. It was used to lift water from a lower elevation to a higher elevation by means of a tube that is internally threaded. The threads on the inside collect water and as the tube rotates, the water is brought up and put into a storage tank. This massive device was run by human power. The person running the screw, usually a slave, held onto a rail at the top and used his own muscle power to propel the water upward.

Aqueducts and Bridging - The Greeks also used techniques such as aqueducts and bridging valleys. They used these devices because the Greeks thought that the water could only be moved if it was moving downward or on a straight path. So in order to keep the water flowing they built aqueducts through mountains and built bridges over valleys. In the sixth century a Greek engineer by the name of Eupalinus of Megara built the aqueduct of Samos. This tunnel measured more than 3000 ft. long and it was started on opposite ends hoping to meet in the middle. When the two met, the tunnels were only fifteen ft. off from each other. On the average, aqueducts were about fourteen feet deep and they were completely lined with stone. The aqueducts were either single route or they branched off into many branches that supplied different areas with water. There was also a form of manhole covers that allowed the workers to access the aqueduct more easily if work needed to be done.

Siphon Principle - Hero, a Greek who lived after 150 B.C. was the first hydraulic engineer. He modernized the obtaining of water through a method known as the siphon principle. The siphon principle allows the pipes that carry the water to follow the terrain of the land and the aqueduct and bridging techniques were no longer used as often. For example, such a device was used for the citadel at Pergamon. The pipes that connected to the citadel had approximately 300 pounds of pressure per square inch and the pipes were most likely made of metal in order to withstand the pressure.

...The slaves who had the responsibility of cleaning and repairing all of the public utilities. The more progressive cities had drains under the street that carried both fresh water and sewage. At times these slaves were used to watch over the fountains so that no one did their laundry or bathed in it. They also had to make sure that money thrown into the fountain for luck was not stolen by anyone.

Most of the public water-supply was used for public buildings, such as baths and street fountains. For example, in Alexandria, in Egypt, each house had a personal cistern for their own water for their own use. The slaves also had to clean these cisterns. These private owners of cisterns and users of water had to pay a water rate to the city. It is sort of like the first public utilities company.

Did the Romans come up with the idea of the Phalanx or â..shield wall?â.�

Phalanx Formation: Origins

Some historians and authorities date the formation of the hoplite phalanx of ancient Greece to the eighth century BC in Sparta, though this is being revised as it is more likely that the formation was devised in the seventh century BC after the introduction of the Aspis shield (popularly but mistakenly known as the hoplon) by the city of Argos, which would have made the formation possible. (The Roman Empire began in the 1st century B.C.)

The hoplite phalanx was a formation in which the hoplites would line up in ranks, no less than four deep, in very close order. In this formation, the hoplites would lock their shields together, while the first few ranks of soldiers would project their spears out over the first rank of shields, thus allowing for the first three or so ranks of spearmen to engage their spears against the enemy. Therefore, one might say that the phalanx was essentially a formation in which the hoplites created a mass spear and shield wall.

So how did the Romans get the technology they had?

Roman Infantry Tactics

Roman tactics and strategy evolved from that typical of a small tribal host seeking local hegemony, to massive operations encompassing a world empire. This advance was... undergirded by a distinctive "Roman way" of war. This approach included a tendency towards

standardization and systematization,

practical borrowing,

copying and adapting from outsiders,

flexibility in tactics and methods,

a strong sense of discipline,

a ruthless persistence that sought comprehensive victory, and

a cohesion brought about by the ideal of Roman citizenship under arms.

These elements waxed and waned over time, but they form a distinct basis underlying Rome's rise.

But didn't they at least have great legal talents?

Lawyer: History

It is very difficult to determine when the legal profession started, because of all the confusion... about who is a lawyer. If one tightly defines a lawyer as a person who earns their living through advocacy in a court of law on behalf of others, then the earliest lawyers were probably the orators of ancient Athens. However, Athenian orators faced serious structural obstacles. First, there was a rule that individuals were supposed to plead their own cases, which was soon bypassed by the increasing tendency of individuals to ask a "friend" for assistance... Second, a more serious obstacle, which the Athenian orators never completely overcame, was the rule that no one could take a fee to plead the cause of another. This law was widely disregarded in practice, but was never abolished, which meant that orators could never present themselves as legal professionals or experts. They had to uphold the legal fiction that they were merely an ordinary citizen generously helping out a friend for free, and thus they could never organize into a real profession â.. with professional associations and titles and all the other pomp and circumstance â.. like their modern counterparts. Therefore, if one narrows the definition to those men who could practice the legal profession openly and legally, then the first lawyers would have to be the orators of ancient Rome.

Addendum: Charles Murray on Rome

May 4th, 2007

After compiling the quotes above, I came upon these passages in pages 30 and 31 of Charles' Murray's 2003 work, Human Accomplishment, where he discusses artistic and scientific progress around the world from 800 B.C. through 1950. What is most striking is not that Murray agrees so closely with my own conclusions about the lack of creativity among the ancient Romans, but that his professional analysis is, if anything, even more stark:

Perhaps stranger to our sensibility than the Romans' lack of scientific knowledge was their lack of curiosity. The Roman code, widely honored from the Republic through the Antonines, demanded that the Roman gentleman engage in public service, that he embody vigor and industriousness, that he shun lexus (self indulgence) and inertia (idleness). But Romans despised learning for learning's sake.

It is interesting to think that the Roman disdain for inertia was directly responsible for the artistic and scientific inertness of their entire civilization. But Murray continues:

...Architecture was the one art to which a Roman gentleman might properly apply himself. It involved science and aesthetics, but to a clear and present purpose. Otherwise, Romans disdained artists as much as they disdained scholars.

...[T]aken as a whole, the Roman world throughout its history, whether republic or empire, was a near intellectual void when it came to the arts and sciences - "peopled by a race of pygmies," in Gibbon's contemptuous words. Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did not come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose.