6 ms·

It's amazing what people built 2000 years ago, and sort of depressing too. I went over to a friend's house recently who had gotten a new outdoor hot tub. That t

It's amazing what people built 2000 years ago, and sort of depressing too. I went over to a friend's house recently who had gotten a new outdoor hot tub. That thing isn't going to last 3 winters let alone a volcanic eruption.

marginalia_nu 2y ago
Wealthy Romans had a bit of a culture-boner for leaving a lasting legacy, maintaining the dynasty, and that sort of thing, and conversely often relied on ancestral clout to borrow credibility from. I don't think anyone today would try to base their credibility on being the distant relative of Ben Franklin in the way an upstart roman might invoke their familiar relationship with Scipio Africanus. Makes sense they built stuff to last in such an environment.
- beardyw 2y ago
  I think also they were very much more in touch with their own mortality than is common today.
  - tejohnso 2y ago
    > In some accounts of the Roman triumph, a companion or public slave would stand behind or near the triumphant general during the procession and remind him from time to time of his own mortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Other thing would not be expected in a war driven society, where being a legionary was quite common, and very few managed to return back (alive) to civil life after doing their part on the assigned legion.
- ElevenLathe 2y ago
  It was also impossible to make things out of fiberglass, but hand-carved stone was actually available.
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    So was non-permanent building materials such as wood, to be fair.
    - toyg 2y ago
      Not really, that's the resource that disappeared faster than anything, being the simplest to get. Mediterranean forests have never been particularly dense, already the Greeks were moving lots of wood on the sea from the best locations. Stone was easier to get from the areas around Rome.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  Survivorship bias. The only artifacts we see are the ones that were meant to last. Those Romans who did not build for eternity have not been remembered, which distorts our view of thier society. It is akin to classic car enthusiasts who think cars were made better way back when. They think that because they only see the survivors. They do not see all the junk that history has rightly forgotten.
  - Anotheroneagain 2y ago
    The city was buried in two days, if anything we may not see the most valuable possessions.
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      Something like 90% of romans did not live in cities. Survivorship bias again. We judge them buy the solid cities, or lord's manor houses. We have lost the mud/brick/wood farms where the vast majority lived.
      - Anotheroneagain 2y ago
        I'm sorry, but you're getting into "I'm smart and want to argue a point" territory. Nothing of that applies to Pompeii, as it was buried by a volcano, and everyone and everything that wasn't taken as the people were runnung away stayed as it was. It's basically the Pripyat of Classical Antiquity
YouWhy 2y ago
> That thing isn't going to last 3 winters let alone a volcanic eruption. Could it have been a case of survivorship bias? I.e., perhaps jankier facilities have been built at Pompeii but simply did not make it at all or were not prioritized for excavation?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 4gotunameagain 2y ago
  People are downvoting you because it is simply due to the different materials and building methodologies of the past. Things took much longer to build and were much more expensive, but they were very durable as an effect. There were no plastic hot tubs in Pompeii that burned when the pyroclastic flow swept past.
  - shawabawa3 2y ago
    There were no plastic ones but there were very probably some wooden ones, or other luxurious wooden items which were destroyed without a trace and we'd never know
    - perihelions 2y ago
      I mean, they certainly knew how to make wooden water containers: they wrote it down. This context is dye-making rather than baths, - "...This water is boiled with an equal quantity of pure water, and is then poured into large wooden reservoirs [original: "piscinas ligneas"]. Across these reservoirs there are a number of immovable beams, to which cords are fastened, and then sunk into the water beneath by means of stones; upon which, a slimy..." https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/62704/pg62704-images.html#BOOK_XXXIV_CHAP_32 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/62704/pg62704-images.ht... ("Chalcanthum, or shoemakers’ black: sixteen remedies" (77)) https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0138%3Abook%3D34%3Achapter%3D48 https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
  - therealpygon 2y ago
Aniket-N 2y ago
Well, this bath house was owned by some one ultra wealthy. There were multiple people (possibly slaves), just toiling away to keep the furnace going. Today a hot tub can be had by millions.
perihelions 2y ago
Isn't it the exact opposite? Every single house in the modern world has running water—it wouldn't be code-compliant, in any functioning country, to not have that. That was a high-status luxury in Rome. (It was even a largesse of the Emperor to be gifted[0] the right to have a private plumbing connection to an aqueduct—something considered highly desirable in that world). The fact people today build inexpensive plastic Thermae as a novelty object, reflects how thoroughly we've solved all the *actually hard* problems of water infrastructure. The formerly expensive parts are now unimaginably cheap, so, we're exploring new places to cut costs that we previously wouldn't think of. (It's akin to how computer keyboards are now 10x cheaper and junkier than they were in the 1960's–1980's (?), because, the other problems having been solved, that became a new focus of economization. No one would think twice about paying (the modern equivalent of) $100 for a well-engineered mechanical keyboard, in an era when the corresponding PC went for $5,000. The expensive object reflects an economic difficulty elsewhere; and the expensive Roman stonework baths perhaps reflected the costliness of water in general). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct#Distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct#Distribution
- mschild 2y ago
  I don't think they are lamenting the fact that these things have reduced in price but rather significantly in quality as well. There is something to be said about price reductions, but at some point the quality lowers to a point where it has become a waste of resources as the product you bought will seize working within a short time frame. I've always made this unfortunate experience with shoes. With good care, 100 Euro sneakers would last me about 2 years. A pair of handcrafted leather shoes I bought 12 years ago are still going strong. While the leather shoes were almost 4 times the price, they've paid for themselves at this point.
  - pdfernhout 2y ago
    Obligatory mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory "The Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory, is an economic theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items. The term was coined by English fantasy writer Sir Terry Pratchett in his 1993 Discworld novel Men at Arms. In the novel, Sam Vimes, the captain of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch, illustrates the concept with the example of boots. The theory has been cited with regard to analyses of the prices of boots, fuel prices, and economic conditions in the United Kingdom." Tangentially related on the bigger picture: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1280581-the-state-of-the-art https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1280581-the-state-of-t... "Money is a sign of poverty. (Iain M. Banks)"
infecto 2y ago
You could still build a hot tub out of tile in such a way that it will last for a very long time.
throw0101a 2y ago
> That thing isn't going to last 3 winters let alone a volcanic eruption. He can have a hot tub that could survive a volcanic eruption, he just has to to pay for it. Is your friend willing to allocate the resources, or is he happy with 'good enough'?
matkoniecz 2y ago
Ability to buy cheap stuff, accessible to regular people and not ultra-wealthy is new. You can still spend massive piles of money on long-lasting stuff. This hot tub cost was likely higher than lifetime earnings of average citizen. Also, its cost was likely greater than what would cost to buy several slaves. And likely was in fact built by slaves. Of all things I see nothing to be depressed about here given our situation.
ASalazarMX 2y ago
Nothing stops any modern person from building in this long-lasting style if they want to; except for the incredible expense, that is. In your defense, I still think your friend could do better than a three-year outdoor hot tub, but that was them being unnecessarily cheap.

marginalia_nu 2y ago

Wealthy Romans had a bit of a culture-boner for leaving a lasting legacy, maintaining the dynasty, and that sort of thing, and conversely often relied on ancestral clout to borrow credibility from. I don't think anyone today would try to base their credibility on being the distant relative of Ben Franklin in the way an upstart roman might invoke their familiar relationship with Scipio Africanus. Makes sense they built stuff to last in such an environment.

beardyw 2y ago
I think also they were very much more in touch with their own mortality than is common today.
- tejohnso 2y ago
  > In some accounts of the Roman triumph, a companion or public slave would stand behind or near the triumphant general during the procession and remind him from time to time of his own mortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Other thing would not be expected in a war driven society, where being a legionary was quite common, and very few managed to return back (alive) to civil life after doing their part on the assigned legion.
ElevenLathe 2y ago
It was also impossible to make things out of fiberglass, but hand-carved stone was actually available.
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  So was non-permanent building materials such as wood, to be fair.
  - toyg 2y ago
    Not really, that's the resource that disappeared faster than anything, being the simplest to get. Mediterranean forests have never been particularly dense, already the Greeks were moving lots of wood on the sea from the best locations. Stone was easier to get from the areas around Rome.
sandworm101 2y ago
Survivorship bias. The only artifacts we see are the ones that were meant to last. Those Romans who did not build for eternity have not been remembered, which distorts our view of thier society. It is akin to classic car enthusiasts who think cars were made better way back when. They think that because they only see the survivors. They do not see all the junk that history has rightly forgotten.
- Anotheroneagain 2y ago
  The city was buried in two days, if anything we may not see the most valuable possessions.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    Something like 90% of romans did not live in cities. Survivorship bias again. We judge them buy the solid cities, or lord's manor houses. We have lost the mud/brick/wood farms where the vast majority lived.
    - Anotheroneagain 2y ago
      I'm sorry, but you're getting into "I'm smart and want to argue a point" territory. Nothing of that applies to Pompeii, as it was buried by a volcano, and everyone and everything that wasn't taken as the people were runnung away stayed as it was. It's basically the Pripyat of Classical Antiquity

YouWhy 2y ago

> That thing isn't going to last 3 winters let alone a volcanic eruption. Could it have been a case of survivorship bias? I.e., perhaps jankier facilities have been built at Pompeii but simply did not make it at all or were not prioritized for excavation?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
4gotunameagain 2y ago
People are downvoting you because it is simply due to the different materials and building methodologies of the past. Things took much longer to build and were much more expensive, but they were very durable as an effect. There were no plastic hot tubs in Pompeii that burned when the pyroclastic flow swept past.
- shawabawa3 2y ago
  There were no plastic ones but there were very probably some wooden ones, or other luxurious wooden items which were destroyed without a trace and we'd never know
  - perihelions 2y ago
    I mean, they certainly knew how to make wooden water containers: they wrote it down. This context is dye-making rather than baths, - "...This water is boiled with an equal quantity of pure water, and is then poured into large wooden reservoirs [original: "piscinas ligneas"]. Across these reservoirs there are a number of immovable beams, to which cords are fastened, and then sunk into the water beneath by means of stones; upon which, a slimy..." https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/62704/pg62704-images.html#BOOK_XXXIV_CHAP_32 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/62704/pg62704-images.ht... ("Chalcanthum, or shoemakers’ black: sixteen remedies" (77)) https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0138%3Abook%3D34%3Achapter%3D48 https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
- therealpygon 2y ago

Aniket-N 2y ago

Well, this bath house was owned by some one ultra wealthy. There were multiple people (possibly slaves), just toiling away to keep the furnace going. Today a hot tub can be had by millions.

perihelions 2y ago

Isn't it the exact opposite? Every single house in the modern world has running water—it wouldn't be code-compliant, in any functioning country, to not have that. That was a high-status luxury in Rome. (It was even a largesse of the Emperor to be gifted[0] the right to have a private plumbing connection to an aqueduct—something considered highly desirable in that world). The fact people today build inexpensive plastic Thermae as a novelty object, reflects how thoroughly we've solved all the *actually hard* problems of water infrastructure. The formerly expensive parts are now unimaginably cheap, so, we're exploring new places to cut costs that we previously wouldn't think of. (It's akin to how computer keyboards are now 10x cheaper and junkier than they were in the 1960's–1980's (?), because, the other problems having been solved, that became a new focus of economization. No one would think twice about paying (the modern equivalent of) $100 for a well-engineered mechanical keyboard, in an era when the corresponding PC went for $5,000. The expensive object reflects an economic difficulty elsewhere; and the expensive Roman stonework baths perhaps reflected the costliness of water in general). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct#Distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct#Distribution

mschild 2y ago
I don't think they are lamenting the fact that these things have reduced in price but rather significantly in quality as well. There is something to be said about price reductions, but at some point the quality lowers to a point where it has become a waste of resources as the product you bought will seize working within a short time frame. I've always made this unfortunate experience with shoes. With good care, 100 Euro sneakers would last me about 2 years. A pair of handcrafted leather shoes I bought 12 years ago are still going strong. While the leather shoes were almost 4 times the price, they've paid for themselves at this point.
- pdfernhout 2y ago
  Obligatory mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory "The Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory, is an economic theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items. The term was coined by English fantasy writer Sir Terry Pratchett in his 1993 Discworld novel Men at Arms. In the novel, Sam Vimes, the captain of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch, illustrates the concept with the example of boots. The theory has been cited with regard to analyses of the prices of boots, fuel prices, and economic conditions in the United Kingdom." Tangentially related on the bigger picture: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1280581-the-state-of-the-art https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1280581-the-state-of-t... "Money is a sign of poverty. (Iain M. Banks)"

infecto 2y ago

You could still build a hot tub out of tile in such a way that it will last for a very long time.

throw0101a 2y ago

> That thing isn't going to last 3 winters let alone a volcanic eruption. He can have a hot tub that could survive a volcanic eruption, he just has to to pay for it. Is your friend willing to allocate the resources, or is he happy with 'good enough'?

matkoniecz 2y ago

Ability to buy cheap stuff, accessible to regular people and not ultra-wealthy is new. You can still spend massive piles of money on long-lasting stuff. This hot tub cost was likely higher than lifetime earnings of average citizen. Also, its cost was likely greater than what would cost to buy several slaves. And likely was in fact built by slaves. Of all things I see nothing to be depressed about here given our situation.

ASalazarMX 2y ago

Nothing stops any modern person from building in this long-lasting style if they want to; except for the incredible expense, that is. In your defense, I still think your friend could do better than a three-year outdoor hot tub, but that was them being unnecessarily cheap.