An essay on the effect of acqueducts in ancient Rome A basic fact of life: humans need water to survive. Therefore, it is not surprising that water has played an important role in history. All of the ancient civilizations, including Rome, had to deal with the problem of a steady water supply. Romes solutions had both positive and negative results. At first glance, one would think that Roae would have no problem supplying water to her people. After all, the city was built on a river. Why would water have to be brought into the city? There were several reasons: first of all, river water is not known for its cleanliness. It may do for irrigation, but not for drinking.
Drinking water would either have be drawn up from wells, or brought in to the cities from pure sources in the mountains. However, digging wells enough for several ten thousand people is not practical, as wells need to be spaced far apart. Thus, the need for aqueducts. Bringing water in from the mountains was no simple matter. The easiest method of transporting water was gravity feed via a sloped channel or pipe. However, there were hills and valleys which must be crossed.
The Roman engineers used a variety of techniques to overcome these obstacles. First, the rate of descent for the channel must be determined. Using geometry and trigonometry, this is a relatively simple problem of triangulation. Vetruvius said that each channel “must be leveled with a fall of not less than half a foot in 100 feet.” These calculations indicate that the Romans had sufficient mathematical knowledge to undertake the aqueduct programs, as well as engineering expertise. Since the channel for the water must go in a straight line, then the next problem was where to put the line. The placement would have to take into account the changes in elevation along the course of the channel.
The Essay on Global Water Shortage Problem
Water shortage is a global problem by William 8H Water shortage is a problem worldwide - A combination of climate change and poor resource management is leading to water shortages in even the most developed countries. In London, leaks from water mains are wasting 300 Olympic swimming pools worth of water every day whilst southern parts of Europe is becoming drier as a result of climate change and ...
The Romans took a course of compromise in their construction: they tunneled through hills and raised the channel on arches through valleys. Once the water reached the city, it emptied into a storage tank. From there, it was distributed into the city system or to people who paid for the right to tap the tank. However, aqueducts were more than just a convenient way of transporting water. They could also be used to curry political favor. They also speak speaks of the drainage channel to Lake Fucine. The Marsians had requested the project be carried out under Augustus, but he had refused.
Claudius, on the other hand, carried out the request even though it took eleven years work by 30,000 men. Suetonius suggests that Claudius undertook the project for personal glory. However, it could be that he wanted to gain the favor of the Marsians after his questionable accession(namely, being appointed by the Praetorian Guard after they assassinated Caligula).
As expensive as aqueducts were to build, they were also a source or continuing revenue for the emperor. Citizens paid a water tax for what they consumed, and all citizens who tapped the main tanks paid for their license to do so. These licenses, or grants as Frontinus called them, were for a set period of time and could not be sold by the holder or passed on to his heirs. The fact that these grants had to be signed by the emperor indicates that the water supply was closely watched over by the highest levels of the government. Frontinus also states that water grants to public baths were for perpetuity.
This points out how important the public baths were to the ancient Romans, if they were to always be guaranteed water. There were also health implications from the aqueducts. Vetruvius described the two most common piping materials: earthenware and lead. Lead pipes may have been easier to handle, and not as fragile as earthenware, but there was a negative side effect of lead piping: lead poisoning. The Romans seem to have been vaguely aware of how detrimental lead was to the body. Vetruvius wrote: “For when lead is smelted in casting, the fumes from it settle on the members of the body and, burning them, rob the limbs of the virtues of the blood.
The Term Paper on Ancient Roman Architecture Drinking Water
... adequate water supply is developed as water is a necessity to the health and survival of the roman people. ... and inns, but also town houses of wealthier roman citizens (Julius Caesar's parents were living in the ... of it. Nero's lifestyle made his house an easy target for criticism. The Domus Aurea became ... contours of the land, heading along spurs that lead towards Rome. The construction of high arches ...
Therefore, it seems that water should by no means be brought in lead pipes if we desire to have it wholesome.”Coincidentally, lead poisoning is one proposed contributing cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. The aqueducts played an important role in Roman life, being a source of water for consumption and bathing, revenue for the imperial coffers, and political power. However, in the end the very materials used to transport this life giving liquid may have helped poison Rome. Now that you know how much the romans used water its easy to see that lead poisoning is Another theory that can be accounted for is the corrupt government witch the roman empire was under. Its easy to see this by the ways in which they governed there cities. For one they taxed the hell out of the poor people.
Usually when this happens people tend to have no money of there own which leads to starvation and poverty. when this happens people tend to lose interest in the government and dispise there leaders. Now In Rome it was a fighting based culture where when the country got into a war the people had to fight for it. Now When People are standing around tired, hungry, and broke because the had to give all there money to the fat guy that sits around eating and drinking wine all day you think there going to listen to him when he says, im in a slump im being attacked do you think you could go get theses people out of here? I dont think so. In fact its the other way around. People get sick of getting tossed around, working all day to pay for the fat guy.
In other words people get pissed off and rebel. And that in fact is a theory that I highly bieleve in. Now if I was in there position I would rebel also. So from this its easy to see how the people, or citizens, of the Roman empire could have over taken the thrown of the Caesar and get away with it. Majority rules and when it comes to the Roman citizens there the majority. All in all I think both theories are highly believable and have good support to think this.
The Term Paper on Gladiatorial Games Animals People Romans
"The Romans are often characterized as loving violent and cruel entertainment in the amphitheatres. It has been suggested that the games served the dual purpose of providing entertainment for the people and maintaining the political status quo." In today's society, the killing of humans and animals usually means a jail term, and seeing someone die is not something people go and see for fun. ...
Its possible to say that the fall of the Roman empire could have been caused by a million things. But I guess we will never really know the truth because we were never
