Viggen Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Was ancient Rome really a 'glittering city of marble'? Reconstruction of capital shows it was made mostly from brick Emperor Augustus boasted about how his rule left Rome 'a city of marble' while historical accounts said it glittered Historians at the University of California Los Angeles have reconstructed ancient Rome using architectural software They found that most of the buildings were built mainly from brick and only a few temples were made from marble Those that were made from marble would have been difficult to see from many parts of the city, say the researchers Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2981137/Was-ancient-Rome-really-glittering-city-marble-Reconstruction-capital-shows-brick.html#ixzz3Tg7zS9ax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Augustus was showing off. Sure, he added a lot of marble, paid for by squeezing whatever taxable source he could find, but Rome was still still a city of jerry built tenements built by cowboy builders. I understand the tallest ever was nine stories erected sometime around his reign, and I think it Augustus who brought in a law limiting the number of floors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maty Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I guess it's a matter of perspective. One of the things about ancient cities is that much more of the area was devoted to public space than is the case today. So if you were on the Palatine you'd have a pretty good view of the monumental areas of Rome, the forum and the Campus Martius. The nine-storey brick tenements at the base of the Esquiline were precisely because something like sixty percent of the population of Rome occupied twenty percent of the city's area. The other eighty percent was more marbly. Edited March 9, 2015 by Maty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onasander Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 You have a source for that 80-20 percent presumption? I'm having trouble visualizing this based on drawings of the various districts. I can't claim your wrong, but it doesn't feel right either in terms of workable Ekistics. Like, sewage issues pop into mind immediately, as well as aqueduct constraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 11, 2015 Report Share Posted March 11, 2015 The other eighty percent were more marbly? Actuially I doubt that. True, certain amenities and public buildings would have benefitted, but even the pa;latial villas of the most important and wealthy Romans were still largely brick - their ruins are still on the Palatine, and without nthe decoration, looking no different from any other tenement remains aside from arrangement and size, but then, the slave quarters under the house in at least one place were certainly nothing to shout about in terms of space, so it's relative I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Was ancient Rome really a 'glittering city of marble'? Maybe it was for the elite. For most of the residents, however, it was a dirty, fetid-smelling, densely-populated, crime-ridden, dilapidated urban sprawl. Ancient Rome reeked of excrement and urine (both human and animal), rotting animal carcasses and garbage, rancid human sweat barely cloaked with sickly-sweet perfumes, and exotic food and spice smells. (Not so) good times. guy also known as gaius Edited March 14, 2015 by guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Yet despite the bad smell (which they didn't make a great deal of) and the noise level (which they did), surviving evidence shows the people of Rome had a lively time, lots of humour, thrills, spills, and of course sex (unless you were the poor guy whose graffiti moans about why his girl won't love him). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maty Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Are you thinking of this conversation? I.10.2-3 (Bar of Prima); 8258, 8259: 'Successus the weaver loves Iris the innkeeper’s slave girl. She, however, does not love him. Still, he begs her to have pity on him.' [in a different hand]. 'Goodbye.' [ Successus]: 'Butt out, Envious one! Submit to a handsomer man, who despite his good looks is being treated very wrongly.' [Answer]: 'I have spoken. I have written all there is to say. You love Iris, but she does not love you.' Ah, the pains of unrequited love. (Though Prima's Bar was in Pompeii.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.