Talk:Roman aqueduct

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"..still maintain..."

Many cities still maintain and use the ancient aqueducts for their water supply even today.[citation needed] This is true, or trueish; at least one (I think just one) aqueduct still flows into the city of Rome, supplying some fountains. I've not heard that cities still use them as a water-source for anything else, like drinking water, but it seems plausible. Anyways, I no longer have the book, so I can't cite this -- but don't remove it. --Xiaphias 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Venter Bridge

There is a reference to a bridge. I am a registered civil engineer with 20+ years experience, and have never heard this term before. Could someone create a link, or expand on the topic?

Obviously I am not the one to do that :o)

(responding to this probably ancient query): It's used in the scholarship. See here. I'll amend the article text to explain the term, and provide the foregoing link as citation. Haploidavey (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Venter is Latin, and has several shades of meaning; a womb, a protrusion, a belly; this last sense is (predictably enough) apparent in Vitruvius 8.6 (Gwilt's translation, copyright expired) - "if there be long valleys, and when it [the water] arrives at the bottom, let it be carried level by means of a low substruction as great a distance as possible; this is the part called the venter, by the Greeks koilia; when it arrives at the opposite acclivity, the water therein being but slightly swelled on account of the length of the venter, it may be directed upwards... Over the venter long stand pipes should be placed, by means of which, the violence of the air may escape. Thus, those who have to conduct water through leaden pipes, may by these rules, excellently regulate its descent, its circuit, the venter, and the compression of the air." In other words, the "belly" of the siphon should be supported by the low bridge, aka a "venter bridge". Haploidavey (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Josh

All articles on ancient roman aqueducts shouldbe merged into one big article and it enables users to find information quick and more efficiently. Josh. 59.100.88.57

Umm, no offense but newbies ought not delete an entire talk page. They should also sign their comments with four tildas (~)s. But apart from that, welcome, hello, which pages did you have in mind? Lao Wai 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes little sense to have two articles with names that mean the same and contents that relate to the same, please merge sympathetically. NoelWalley 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be merged. That's like merging 'American Freeway System' with 'Washington Turnpike'. One article relates to the *empire* of Rome, one to the *city*; don't let the fact that they've the same name confuse you.

But the information in the Empire article includes most of the info in the City article, and has a zippier table. Mlouns 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Longest aqueduct

Someone changed the article naming a new longest aqueduct based on a source added at the same time. I will endeavor to examine the new source. I also wonder why the previously mentioned "longest" is still shorter than the longest mentioned at List of Roman aqueducts by date. Thoughts anyone?—WAvegetarian (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that puzzled me too. The name "Mango" sounded slightly funny, so I just looked him up on bookfinder.com , and it seems legitimate: [1] But I still wonder about it, and I would like to know more. Mlouns 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Any updates on this? If it is indeed legitimate we need to remove the in-text citation and use a footnote or whatever instead. To me it also seems random and out of place in the middle of the paragraph... On3moresoul (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

lead and decline of roman empire?

I remember reading at one point a theory that the lead used to fill joints in roman aqueduct construction caused high lead-levels in roman cities which in turn caused widespread low-level lead-poisoning, which in turn would hurt infant brain growth, and thus over time may have been a causal factor in the decline of rome - has anyone read something similar ?

Dialectric (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Split of Aqueduct

For those interested, it would be useful to have some input regarding the multiple meanings of Aqueduct, particularly correct classification: Aqueduct#Suggested split. —Sladen (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate uses of Roman aqueducts

If an ancient Roman were to use an aqueduct as a water slide, would he or she have drowned? Would it have been a fun ride? Would it have been slow? Would she or he have been punished by the centurions? Darth Anne Jaclyn Mantione (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, vigiles, whatever. Darth Anne Jaclyn Mantione (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Does said ancient Roman have inner tube? Furthermore, does said ancient Roman have beer? I'd imagine it would be like a lazy river. Zaphod Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IIRC the gradient is pretty shallow on most of these things, so it would have been quite a dull ride. Not sure how much roof clearance you might have expected either ... and the arrival in the receiving tank might have been hard to survive. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of "Engineering" section, may need work

I've just restored the section "Engineering", deleted 21:10, 28 February 2008 via vandalism. It may need some reintegration with the rest of the article. Paul August ☎ 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

what it is?

It would be great if someone were up to and would add a short description of exactly what an aqueduct is in the opening paragraph. Perhaps it is mentioned somewhere lower in the article, or maybe that needs to be added too?96.49.32.244 (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent units of measurement

This article uses a variety of measures. Can anyone who's 1: able (not me) and 2: willing (that's me, but see 1) sort it out? I realise that this would address only the tip of the iceberg but... Haploidavey (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit

To the introductory section and to the lede, that starts with "Rome is known as the World's first megacity..." was reverted because:

• the new text resembled an essay instead of an encyclopedia,
• the text strayed too far from the main subject of the 'Roman aqueduct', especially in the first paragraph and introductory section (which is supposed to only summarize the main points of the article) and
• the tone of the new content seemed out-of-place compared to the rest of the article.

I welcome a discussion about this content from the editorial community...maybe folks think my reversion should be reverted (the content should stand exactly as it was added), or maybe it can be adjusted/altered/edited and then added in a different form, or whatever. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dates omitted, making at least one statement incomprehensible

In the section "Uses," the following statement is found: "The first were probably built in the next century..." However, the preceding text of this section is entirely devoid of references to any dates at all So this "next century" reference is worthless. LMorland (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Vitruvius on minimum gradient

Hi, I've been wondering about the (often very small) slope of roman aqueducts. In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct#Conduits_and_gradients it says "Vitruvius recommends a low gradient of not less than 1 in 4800 for the channel...". For one thing the formulation is not clear (is this a lower or an upper limit on the slope...?). Also, elsewhere I find that on the contrary Vitruvius recommended to use at least an astonishingly steep gradient of 0.5% (1 in 200). See http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/8*.html#6 (chapter 6, point 1, also available in latin), https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqu%C3%A4dukt#Allgemeines etc.

Here the problem is discussed: https://books.google.ch/books?id=1Izau5_ihmsC&lpg=PA176&ots=tIt3LWqFr_&dq=vitruvius%20gradient&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q=vitruvius%20gradient&f=false Thus it seems that in the book by Vitruvius indeed 0.5% is recommended (as a minimum!), but that there is something strange/wrong about that (for one thing, it doesn't correspond to actual roman aqueducts). Whereas the 1 in 4800 comes from a later book by Pliny.

Also some remark on what gradient is needed (for a given rectangular cross section) to get a certain flow (say 1m^3/sec) would be useful. Quite possibly indeed (for the typical cross sections) something like 1 in 5000 (0.02%) is enough. (I know an approximate formula for (turbulent) flow in water pipes, but not in (rectangular) channels. (Presumably the flow in aqueducts is already turbulent, otherwise, well, one could even calculate it.) 82.51.148.170 (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mango reference (see also several posts up from here)

The work cited seems to be: Constantinople and its Hinterland: Papers from the Twenty-Seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993 (Publications of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies) Hardcover – 27 Apr 1995, by Cyril Mango (Author), Gilbert Dagron (Author). Very hard to find, even as print; something easier to track down and check might be more useful to readers and editors alike. Apart from which, it seems to be a collection of unreviewed papers. So I'll be removing and rewriting there, as elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the quoted material that follows the Mango reference derives from this [2] website, part of a long-term scholarly project collating new-ish research and reports on the water systems of Constantinople. I don't know if it's currently active. The quote is honest, accurate but uncited. The website must be linked and credited (I can't figure out who wrote the passage in question - it has no copyright notice but quite apart from issues of respect for the work of others, it's best to play safe). It's an old-style htm link, and I can't get it to read as MOS-approved format; but at least it works. Haploidavey (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain the meaning of this sentence

Palimpsest of such channels allows the mining sequence to be inferred.

I don;t think it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.212.33 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It refers to the way in which surviving traces of mining from various times can be archaeologically "read", or in some cases, inferred or guessed at. See Palimpsest - a manuscript over-written many times, in different hands, some clear, some faded or illegible, and not all necessarily writing about the same thing. As analogy, it's not uncommonly applied to archaeological remains though personally, I feel it might be a tad obscure or over-literary. I've inserted an explanation, and I hope it serves to clarify. Haploidavey (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not less than

In this: Vitruvius recommends a low gradient of not less than 1 in 4800 for the channel, presumably to prevent damage to the structure through erosion and water pressure, the not less than seems contrary to the rest of the sentence - does it mean not more than?

If it really does mean not less than then it could be made clear by saying but not less than.

Perhaps the intention was of 1 in not less than 4800? If a larger denominator signifying a smaller gradient is a cause of confusion, then the problem can be avoided by using no steeper than or steeper than instead of less than or greater than. catslash (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Water sources

According to

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/when-romes-fountains-run-dry/

there were four water sources that fed the Roman aqueducts...

• Lake Bracciano
• the spring called Peschiera
• the spring called Le Capore
• the spring called Acqua Marcia

Currently only the first of these four has an article or even a relevant redirect or hatnote.

Surely the others all deserve a mention somewhere in Wikipedia? Perhaps not separate articles, but perhaps redirects to a combined article, or at least redirects to a section of this article. Andrewa (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)