Talk:Roman roads

message: Wow! This page is startlingly in-depth, especially considering the state of most of the rest of the Ancient Rome articles. Great work! -Silence 13:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing section 

message: Thought I would contribute the contents of this panel found on the side of a road in Lyon: 
:Place Morel: ...This square is a very ancient junction crossed in Roman times by the German Way, now Montée des Carmélites. The German Way was one of the five great highways - Aquitaine, Narbonne, Rhine, Ocean and Alps - created by Emperor Augustus' son-in-law Agrippa a little over 2000 years ago. Lugdunum - modern Lyon - was then the centre of of Gallo-Roman Civilisation
this was a fantastic, helpful article!!
(and the original French)
:La place, très ancien carrefour, était traversée par la voie romaine de Germanie, deveue aujourd'hui montée des Carmélites. Cette voie était l'un des cinq grands axes (Aquitaine, Narbonnaise, du Rhin, de l'Océan, des Alpes) créés par Agrippa, gendre de l'empereur romain Auguste, il y a un peu plus de 2 000 ans. Lugdunm était alors le centre de la civilisation gallo-romaine.
I'd incorporate this info but don't know enough of the background, nor the roman names of these 5 roads. Looks like Via Aquitania exists already. Stevage 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A panel in Lyon 

message: The article, similar to the general "road" article, does not actually say how or why a road is useful. It may be of use to the article to add detail of this.
There are just small mentions such as:
:"The Roman roads were essential for the growth of their empire, by enabling them to move armies." 
Are armies not able to move without roads? What makes it so difficult to simply walk on wild grassland?
:The legions made good time on them
Any details on how fast, in particular by comparison to non road transportation, the legions or anything else could travel on them, would be useful.
Peoplesunionpro 02:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose? 

message: I'm curious about this passage: "Carts could travel about 8 miles per day, pedestrians a little more, and so each mansio was about 15 to 18 miles from the next one."  First, does this mean to say that mansiones were placed two days' travel apart?  This seems counterintuitive; perhaps it could be spelled out a little better?  Were travelers expected to make camp in between?
Second, doesn't 8 miles/day seem awfully low?  Normal walking speed is three or four miles an hour.  The Encyclopedia Britannia says "Speed of travel ranged from a low of about 15 miles per day for freight vehicles to 75 miles per day by speedy post drivers."  http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-71890  (That would make the positioning of the mansiones more sensical, too.) 
The Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome I have here (Adkins & Adkins) puts the mansiones an average of 20 to 30 miles apart, and provides a top speed for couriers of over 120 miles per day.  --Jere7my 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travel times? 

message: I noticed that the units were converted from imperial to metric. Shouldn't the measurements include both systems? 154.20.151.165 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say no. The Imperial system isn't used in the area where the Roman road system exists. Those places all use SI units. There's no reason here to cater to us silly Americans who can't be bothered to learn metrics.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say it should be appropriate since no roman measured their distances in metric they used miles even if they were a slightly different mile than we use today. Also they still use miles for measurement in the UK which is a location where romans built roads. When you consider that the vast majority of English speakers use miles as their system of measurement perhaps it is appropriate to be included. Most wiki pages I've seen will include both systems of measurement. Also according to the Wikipedia manual of styles both systems of measurement should be in both systems. --Drewder (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of measurement 

message: There is a claim in article Two Mile Ash that it was a Roman custom to plant an ash tree every two miles.  Does anyone have a citation to support this assertion? --Concrete Cowboy --Concrete Cowboy 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Legions planted an ash tree at every second mile? 

message: Hello. I'm one of the original main contributors to this article. I'm terribly sorry guys, but at the time I did not know enough to put refs in and subsequent contributors seem to have followed my bad example. We are getting almost medieval in that practice. For the most part this is good material and there are penty of refs out there. It needs to be Googled point by point. It is not perfect; there are some errors. Preferably but not necessarily a person with a Latin background would be very useful. Meanwhile I know there is a tag on there and there should be, but do not delete unless you have investigated, OK? And, the investigation could be just a reasonably careful Internet check. The article needs a Notes section and line-item notes. Maybe you could provide one or two without undue strain. Thanks.Dave (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources

message: I added "(Ceausescu era reconstruction, Romania)" to the picture "Potaissa Napoca Milarium". This Milarium is clearly a modern reconstruction. One cannot even judge if there is anything original in it. Knowing Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's personal obsession with  things DacoRoman, for example he personally oredered the name of the ancient city of Cluj to be changed to Cluj-Napoca, Wikipedia editors must be careful when showing Ceausescu era Romanian archeological restorations.
The Charter of Venice states: "The process of restoration... It must stop at the point where conjecture begins,...."
The map "The Roman Empire in the time of Hadrian (ruled 117-38AD)...etc." appears to be a fine work. The problem I am seeing from a Wikipedia NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy point of view is that it was apparently recently created by two Wikipedia contributors: Andrea Nacu who appears to be a student and a very erudite, albeit, unknown editor EraNavigator. I believe for the sake of the state of the art that Wikipedia should not have been used as a place for the first publication of this map. Apparently it has not been published in scientific journals, has not been peer reviewed, criticized, evaluated. This greatly reduces its credibility. It would have been more fortuitous to make an effort at having it published by proper forums, especially if the authors are affiliated with some University as they appear to be.
Eravian (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern reconstruction and new map 

message: in a quote of the Antonine Itinenary
"There is hardly a district which we might expect a Roman official to be sent to, on service either civil or military, where we do not înd them."
What does this sentence mean? Plinio1 (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the quote.. 

message: Quote: "The official bodies which first succeeded the censors in the care of the streets and roads were two in number."
How else could they be two?  In color?  In flavor?  "Two in number" is a needless redundancy. 71.236.100.183 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Correction Needed 

message: WP:LEAD says the title of the article should normally appear in the first sentence, see also where  in that sentence. The new version removes the title entirely from the lead.
It also changes cited text to an extent that the sources may no longer back up the statements they are citing. This isn't that terrible since the sources are pretty dreadful, and definitely need replacing. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you aren't going to sign with tildes, please don't revert sinebot. You need to read WP:NPA. When I saw you edit I posted both here and on your talk page. After a while, with no response, I reverted it because it is against our MOS. I didn't write any of it. By all means do improve it, but follow WP:LEAD. And I think the way you did it caused problems with the referencing, as I've said above. I'll see what I can do. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead 

message: The page is a bit of a mess. The structure is poor, and the sourcing is worse. Far too much reliance on an 1890 dictionary (cited 50 times) a Cyclopedia of American Horticulture dating 1900, etc - about references dating no later than 1902, about 8 modern ones. And the lead is a mess, I agree. It probably goes into too much detail and it really should not need citations, as it should be based on cited material in the main article. Anyone want to have a go at structure?
Eg:
Lead
History/Development of Roman roads 
Use
Construction methods
Road system
I don't know where to put etymology
This is just a very rough stab and I'm not particularly happy with it, but I'm hesitant to improve it without a better structure. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Given the very heavy reliance on sources written over a century ago, I've tagged this as outdated. See my comments above. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: See under Via munita: "The final steps utilized concrete, which the Romans had exclusively rediscovered". From the history section of the concrete article, plus my prior knowledge, the Romans discovered concrete - not rediscovered it. And what's this "exclusively" part? Allens (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what "exclusively" is supposed to mean here. It makes no sense with "rediscovered," and only slightly more sense with "discovered." If you have RS on Roman concrete, you should go ahead and fix this. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I have a copy of L. Sprague de Camp's Ancient Engineers that IIRC talks about this, but more recent archeological backing would be nice. Will try to see about this (after creating an exam... sigh.) Allens (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fixed with citation. Allens (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Romans "exclusively rediscovered" concrete? 

message: There's a mention of a private postal organization: "Private mail of the well-to-do was carried by tabellarii, an organization of slaves available for a price.". No cite, though.  Any more info available?  One of the strange omissions of the Roman Empire is that, despite the road system, there don't seem to have been private organizations with inter-city reach.  No big stagecoach lines, freight lines, etc. The Romans never invented the corporation as a general-purpose form of business organization. So more info about the tabellarii would be useful. --John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The tabellarii were formally trained slaves or ex-slaves. Eventually they were organised into an official part of the imperial administration, using the official mansiones and mutationes (relay stations for change of horses) as they went. The system was available to private organisations in Rome with financial interests in the provinces (tax farmers), and individuals willing to pay, but this was regarded as an abuse and suppressed from time to time. It's well worth an article, or at least a section of its own in their successors' article, the "heavy hauliers" of the Cursus publicus, but I haven't the time or the knowledge. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Travel organization

message: "Roman roads (in Latin, viae - singular via) were vital to the maintenance and development of the Roman state, and were built from about 500 BC through the expansion and consolidation of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.[1]" This leaves me wanting an actual date, even approximate for when the Romans stopped building these roads. "the expansion and consolidation of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire" is way too  vague. At least give a century, please, so the lede is more informative. The article Roman empire gives 476CE for the end of Roman authority over the western empire, so how about  "Roman roads (in Latin, viae - singular via) were vital to the maintenance and development of the Roman state, and were built from about 500 BC through the expansion and consolidation of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire,[1] in the late 5th century CE."  Or did the Eastern Roman Empire keep building "Roman Roads?" Seems unlikely that Constantinople would have called them "Roman Roads" on into the 15th century CE. It should not be that hard to find archeological studies of when various Roman roads in Europe were built. Did Romanized towns in Britain or elsewhere go on building them after the fall of Rome, or did Germans or others build their own roads in the Roman style? Seems very unlikely. Edison (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The significant question is I think not when did they stop building them but when did they stop maintaining them. Construction mostly followed soon after conquest and probably relatively little was added later. In Britain they were I think already under-maintained before the Romans left, and though still used were in an increasingly bad condition, but in Italy many remained fairly well-repaired until modern times, & much of the Spaccanapoli (street) in Naples looks just like Pompeii at ground level, as does the Via Appia Antiqua in Rome, though this may be rather artificial.  By the late Roman period populations seem to have been falling & the finances falling apart and I think repairing what they already had was probably their only ambition. But a section, or even an article, on post-Roman use of Roman roads would be a good addition. We don't have much on maintenance either, which is really the key to any road system.  Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the most useful replies I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Would just add that I expect road maintenance faltered during the Crisis of the Third Century (when for instance some mining operations were disrupted), but may have revived in the fourth, perhaps along with other attempts by Diocletian et al. to prop up the whole thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that's true. Thanks, although as a response to a request for specific information my comments are a bit of a dud! In Britain, as in most of the Empire AFAIK, many or most Roman road routes remain in use, & have been since they were built. As an example, the recently-found Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire Hoard was found 150 yards or so off Watling Street, the medieval name for this road, which was in fact a pre-Roman route done up by the Romans, now part of the A5 road (Great Britain), and which in the 9th century formed a political border.  Heaven knows what state it was in at that point; there comes a point when a half-paved road is harder to travel on than a path on natural ground, but at least following the route would take you where you needed to go.  Later most paving was I think taken away as building material or for paving or flooring elsewhere and the roads became essentially big paths.  I see Roman roads in Britain has more detail on the post-Roman history, & also says "Most of the known network was complete by 180 AD." which sounds about right. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Many years ago I read a study of how long it took to travel over some long stated distance in Europe while the Romans managed the roads, and if a wheeled vehicle could make the journey in 7 days in the third  century, then a few centuries later the voyage could only be made on horseback (bridges and roadways washed out) and it took multiples of the original time, and required armed escort to avoid being robbed, such that a voyage by coastal sea vessel was preferable. I don't have the source. There must be one or a few named roads or major segments between towns which are candidates for the "last one built" of some category, though a deluxe stone paved road might have replaced a gravel road which replaced a dirt road which replaced a foot path. The article and other sources state that building or rebuilding a road was a work for which politicians took credit by putting up monuments, so there might be some historical sources for the demise of roadbuilding. Edison (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: An actual date would be helpful

message: I was expecting to see something on the "Roman Road" to evangelism, or Christian proselytism. It's not there. In any case, if the "Roman Road" were included in this list, it should be marked as a disambiguation article that separates itself from the literal Roman roads. 140.254.226.202 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roman Road" 

message: It appears that according to 
YouTube “Everything you know about Roman roads is wrong”
that ideas about construction of Roman roads has been incorrect for a long time. Is that correct or not? Or is the science in flux? Rkeene0517 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is pretty accurate. Roman roads with stone paving were actually pretty rare, unlike this article claims, but as many old sources misidentified urban streets (which were paved) as actual roads or thought incorrectly of the stones used as foundation as their surface, the misconception persists. Other languages' Wikipedia articles are way more accurate in this topic, like the Spanish one for example. Ce Ele 415 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect construction description? 

message: Wouldn't it be clearer to merge the "General information" and "Further reading" sections? I don't quite understand the difference in content or concept. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "General information" is a sub-section of "references", and all should have been used in writing the article, where those in "Further reading" were not. That's the theory anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature