4 ms·

>IMHO the Roman Empire was build on the back of its civil engineers, and not its legions. At least in the long run. Interesting thought but why would the Empir

by iSnow 5y ago

>IMHO the Roman Empire was build on the back of its civil engineers, and not its legions. At least in the long run. Interesting thought but why would the Empire have fallen then? Most likely, civil engineering remained top notch throughout.

bpiche 5y ago
The empire never ended
- acjohnson55 5y ago
  There's some truth to that, but at the same time it's undeniable that there was a dramatic decrease in political organization, stability, and economic complexity in the Western Empire. Only for brief periods would there be anything like imperial control of Western Europe, but never with the inclusion of Britain and Spain again, and never with the economic engine of Rome. The multi-centric world of Western and Central Europe didn't come close to matching the Roman economy until the Renaissance, and wouldn't surpass it in engineering achievement until the Enlightenment.
jjk166 5y ago
Building roads and sewers and such in a new province is a great way to secure the new people's loyalty. But after the bridge you built has stood for 400 years, people start to ask "but what have the Romans done for me lately?"
- monocasa 5y ago
  "What have the Romans ever done for us?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
- nickik 5y ago
  Not sure if you are just doing a joke reference, but this doesn't really hold up. In the Imperial period most infrastructure was build the empire didn't grow all that much anymore. Binding of territories to the Roman state worked primarily by co-opting local elites by giving them a fair bit of local power and protection from their enemies.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Those local elites would have even more power if they were independent, and imperial protection didn't mean much during the decades of civil wars. People tolerated Roman rule for centuries, during good times and bad, because they recognized that quality of life was better under the Romans. For centuries, barbarians migrated into the empire and were easily integrated into the empire. However in late antiquity Rome stagnated, infrastructure projects weren't being built anymore and various tribes were no longer being effectively assimilated into the empire. Rome's military was still very large, and the elites were more powerful than ever, but the empire fell because those elites and armies were no worse off setting themselves up as independent rulers of small kingdoms.
    - nickik 5y ago
      > Those local elites would have even more power if they were independent No they wouldn't. Because they would face both their internal rivals and external rivals most importantly the empire itself. > and imperial protection didn't mean much during the decades of civil wars There was not as much civil war as you think and not in most regions even if there was. During a civil war local elites had to pick sides. Often those choices happened above their heads. > People tolerated Roman rule for centuries, during good times and bad, because they recognized that quality of life was better under the Romans. Very questionable. Quality of life has little do with it. People for the most part didn't have much say in it, rather the elites. Their standard of life might get better because they get imperial titles, trade monopolies and things like that. Maybe your point is true for the late imperial period around the med, but its certainty not generally true. > However in late antiquity Rome stagnated, infrastructure projects weren't being built anymore and various tribes were no longer being effectively assimilated into the empire. Yes, but what matters is the integration not the infrastructure. In fact, if you really track this, the falling apart of infrastructure does not at all correlate with the Fall of the Western Empire. Much of the infrastructure had already been having issues since the 3rd century. > Rome's military was still very large, and the elites were more powerful than ever, but the empire fell because those elites and armies were no worse off setting themselves up as independent rulers of small kingdoms. The elites with actual power (not just money) were no longer centralized or unified. If you actually look at trade pattern and urbanization they don't actually decline until much later. For the most part the Fall of the formal empire is a non-event. The collapse of the Roman Med economy and the de-urbanization of Italy mostly happens later.
wavefunction 5y ago
In early Imperial Rome prestigious families would fund public works as a public symbol of their wealth and power. This shifted over time to a more self-interested display of wealth and power in the family's villas. If the aqueducts and roads have existed for centuries in your region there is less opportunity for those public displays of civil engineering and I would suspect the skills and knowledge did wither though I can't say to what extent. Look how fast the knowledge to build the space-race era rockets was lost in the US, and that's with modern record keeping and no major domestic disasters or upheavals.
- nickik 5y ago
  The knowledge of space-race ear rockets wasn't lost, the money to build them was no longer available or going into other projects. For the cost of shuttle NASA could have recreated the J-2 and F-1. We unfortunate don't have good data on Roman private and public infrastructure spending detailed enough to really make a god case for how it changed over time.
InitialLastName 5y ago
As we're seeing with infrastructure now in the US, civil engineering isn't a "do once" kind of job. Infrastructure (roads, bridges, irrigation etc) takes consistent upkeep, resources, and redesign as the fixtures degrade and usage patterns change. Engineers still need resources, manpower and direction, so as the empire's control area and wealth centralization receded, so did the impetus/capacity to maintain infrastructure.

by iSnow 5y ago

bpiche 5y ago

The empire never ended

acjohnson55 5y ago
There's some truth to that, but at the same time it's undeniable that there was a dramatic decrease in political organization, stability, and economic complexity in the Western Empire. Only for brief periods would there be anything like imperial control of Western Europe, but never with the inclusion of Britain and Spain again, and never with the economic engine of Rome. The multi-centric world of Western and Central Europe didn't come close to matching the Roman economy until the Renaissance, and wouldn't surpass it in engineering achievement until the Enlightenment.

jjk166 5y ago

Building roads and sewers and such in a new province is a great way to secure the new people's loyalty. But after the bridge you built has stood for 400 years, people start to ask "but what have the Romans done for me lately?"

monocasa 5y ago
"What have the Romans ever done for us?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
nickik 5y ago
Not sure if you are just doing a joke reference, but this doesn't really hold up. In the Imperial period most infrastructure was build the empire didn't grow all that much anymore. Binding of territories to the Roman state worked primarily by co-opting local elites by giving them a fair bit of local power and protection from their enemies.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Those local elites would have even more power if they were independent, and imperial protection didn't mean much during the decades of civil wars. People tolerated Roman rule for centuries, during good times and bad, because they recognized that quality of life was better under the Romans. For centuries, barbarians migrated into the empire and were easily integrated into the empire. However in late antiquity Rome stagnated, infrastructure projects weren't being built anymore and various tribes were no longer being effectively assimilated into the empire. Rome's military was still very large, and the elites were more powerful than ever, but the empire fell because those elites and armies were no worse off setting themselves up as independent rulers of small kingdoms.
  - nickik 5y ago
    > Those local elites would have even more power if they were independent No they wouldn't. Because they would face both their internal rivals and external rivals most importantly the empire itself. > and imperial protection didn't mean much during the decades of civil wars There was not as much civil war as you think and not in most regions even if there was. During a civil war local elites had to pick sides. Often those choices happened above their heads. > People tolerated Roman rule for centuries, during good times and bad, because they recognized that quality of life was better under the Romans. Very questionable. Quality of life has little do with it. People for the most part didn't have much say in it, rather the elites. Their standard of life might get better because they get imperial titles, trade monopolies and things like that. Maybe your point is true for the late imperial period around the med, but its certainty not generally true. > However in late antiquity Rome stagnated, infrastructure projects weren't being built anymore and various tribes were no longer being effectively assimilated into the empire. Yes, but what matters is the integration not the infrastructure. In fact, if you really track this, the falling apart of infrastructure does not at all correlate with the Fall of the Western Empire. Much of the infrastructure had already been having issues since the 3rd century. > Rome's military was still very large, and the elites were more powerful than ever, but the empire fell because those elites and armies were no worse off setting themselves up as independent rulers of small kingdoms. The elites with actual power (not just money) were no longer centralized or unified. If you actually look at trade pattern and urbanization they don't actually decline until much later. For the most part the Fall of the formal empire is a non-event. The collapse of the Roman Med economy and the de-urbanization of Italy mostly happens later.

wavefunction 5y ago

In early Imperial Rome prestigious families would fund public works as a public symbol of their wealth and power. This shifted over time to a more self-interested display of wealth and power in the family's villas. If the aqueducts and roads have existed for centuries in your region there is less opportunity for those public displays of civil engineering and I would suspect the skills and knowledge did wither though I can't say to what extent. Look how fast the knowledge to build the space-race era rockets was lost in the US, and that's with modern record keeping and no major domestic disasters or upheavals.

nickik 5y ago
The knowledge of space-race ear rockets wasn't lost, the money to build them was no longer available or going into other projects. For the cost of shuttle NASA could have recreated the J-2 and F-1. We unfortunate don't have good data on Roman private and public infrastructure spending detailed enough to really make a god case for how it changed over time.

InitialLastName 5y ago

As we're seeing with infrastructure now in the US, civil engineering isn't a "do once" kind of job. Infrastructure (roads, bridges, irrigation etc) takes consistent upkeep, resources, and redesign as the fixtures degrade and usage patterns change. Engineers still need resources, manpower and direction, so as the empire's control area and wealth centralization receded, so did the impetus/capacity to maintain infrastructure.