Talk:Ancient Roman engineering

Merge with Roman technology?

It seems as though this page and Roman technology cover most of the same topics. I would suggest merge this page with Roman technology or delete this one entirely, as the other one is much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.27.209 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one article might be enough, but it would have to be called "Roman Technology and Engineering" (they are separate subjects) and then what is gained? The issue I have with this article and the other one is that they don't say, and apparently no one knows, *how* the Romans performed these feats. Modern engineering would use trigonometry to calculate stresses on structures caused by the pull of gravity and calculus to design the arches and domes. Then there are the aqueducts that have a slope of about 1 foot per mile (?) to keep the water running. The engineers of the 21st century could achieve the same results as the Romans, but could hardly do better using the same materials. Now there is structural steel etc. so we can do it different ways, but how did the Romans do it? The answer from the history books, given in the article, is that they learned it all from the Etruscans and Greeks. Some articles also suggest the Celts. Well, yes, the Greeks built the Parthenon etc. and used advanced mathematics and the Etruscans also were very good at design, but the idea seems to be that the Romans took formulas from them, plugged in numbers, and didn't really understand the math. That is untenable because the Romans did more advanced projects, but it's pretty much what historians and mathematicians say. Besides, the Romans had to do it all in Roman numerals... :-) Perhaps... There could have been a guild or secret society of engineers and their knowledge, and the knowledge of them, was lost during the decline of the Roman Empire. I would like this addressed in the article or articles. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Tone and style

I have to say that a brief glance at the article makes it appear that it is need of a wholesale rewrite; it has the tone of a school paper (e.g., the use of amazing more than once; and the final paragraph). Comments? --FeanorStar7 15:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah go for it be bold edit prune and have a good christmas!!!vcxlor 16:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is absolutely terrible and has at least one glaring flaw which makes me wonder why this page is even here. Beyond a wholesale rewrite, I say just get rid of this page because A) it adds nothing useful to any of the articles it discusses, B) has no information one cannot find on another Roman related page that has citations and C) as mentioned has at least one glaring flaw so why have a page with mistakes that adds nothing useful and has no sources? The error in question is the Circus Maximus being flooded for naval battles. I have never seen or heard about the Circus Maximus ever being flooded, at least on purpose for a naval battle, though this legitimately occurred at the Colosseum. Please please please, for the sake of the Roman civilization, delete this page entirely. Firebrand24 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

For the layman (i.e. myself), it is confusing to understand where the Romans acquired concrete from. The article says the Egyptians invented concrete and the Romans improved upon that invention. The article also states that the Romans acquired concrete from Asia. Perhaps one sentence clarifying this whole thing could help further understanding.

Favor

I am doing a project on roman construction and engineering, if any of you know of any relable sites then please let me know. Thanks! Kinglou135 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aqueducts

some questions that alot of people ask about Aqueducts is are they built at a very slight angle to keep the water flowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.178.22 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman roads appear twice, merge

Roman roads appear twice, merge 46.117.149.192 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)