I’m not sure how the Chinese would manage Roman style plumbing without aqueducts, which, from what I read the Chinese didn’t use. Canals are great for transportation and irrigation, but for fountains, baths and latrines?
Was Abbasid civil engineering inferior to 2nd century Roman civil engineering? I’m not sure it was. Harun al-Rashid was pretty well known for his construction of aqueducts and canals. And the Abbasids certainly had the concept of rule of law. In fact, one of the big Abbasid accomplishments was the transfer of criminal law to the government from religious authorities (who had had the power under the Umayyads.)
Don’t need plumbing for latrine purposes when you’ve got chamber pots and nightsoil collectors. That’s a valuable commodity in an agricultural society, and they weren’t going to let it go to waste.
It dose look like we have a 19th Century Orientalist on a 21st Century forum.
Saudi Armaco World had an excellent article on water in the MENA region. Incidentally, yes, Arab Civil Engineering of the time was better then the Romans,* due to it being a thousand years later*.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Was Abbasid civil engineering inferior to 2nd century Roman civil engineering? I’m not sure it was. Harun al-Rashid was pretty well known for his construction of aqueducts and canals. And the Abbasids certainly had the concept of rule of law. In fact, one of the big Abbasid accomplishments was the transfer of criminal law to the government from religious authorities (who had had the power under the Umayyads.)
[/QUOTE]
Actually, while Independent Judges (Qazi’s) had existed since the time of Umer, the Abbassiads success was in the introduction of proper superior courts and Courts of Appeal (Dar-ul-Qaza) which helped maintain and keep a check on the lower Courts and officialdom.
What proof is that? Engineering in Europe was inferior in Europe until well into the Renaissance and later.
You have to understand there is a secret to Roman Engineering that hasn’t been duplicated to relatively recently: Their concrete.
http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm
When Caliph Abd al-Rahman built his aqueduct, he built it on Roman foundations .
The Umayyad were in many way better than their Christian neighbors, but that doesn’t they did was comparable to the what the 2nd century Romans did.
You also need to remember that Romans sought honor by building elaborate public works. Baths, theaters, arenas circuses were built for the public.
An open aqueduct is just a canal or pipes system (or both) whose main purpose happens to be the transportation of water. For something like the aqueduct at Segovia, only the last part (whose top is a canal) is that pretty, the rest of it is a mix of open canals and pipes going from a spring to the town’s site.
Well I’ll be damned. Getting popularity by public works. Yes* nobody has ever done that besides the Romans*.
:rolleyes:
Baghdad at its height, had a higher usage of water per capita then the Romans did. They also had massive fountains, baths, roads networks, public parks. As did Cairo. And the latter Indian cities, many of which still have them today.
One of the reasons why Europe lacked such large public works was due to the fact that after the fall of the Western Empire, Europe became overwhelmingly rural. Rural societies do not need such large engineering projects. The East has remained urban for most of this time, and yes they do.
Secondly, no one doubts the Roman brilliance in engineering. But, you have had engineering wonders much before and after the Romans, the Egyptians dammed part of the Nile in around 3000 BC (Menses’s era) the Babylonians created canals some of which are still in use today, the Persians had an intricate system of roads. Furthermore in many ways, Roman technology in many areas was inferior to that of both contempories and their successors, metallurgy is one area for instance.
Statements like the above, sounds like 19th century orientalists and classicists. Few of whom, I’ll add were actually trained in history.
FTR the Ummayads were a different dynasty from the Abassiads, who replaced the.
Must… not… make… Life of Brian… joke…
But other than Life of Brian jokes, what have the Romans ever given us?
Watch it. There’s still a few crosses left.
I was actually talking about Harun al-Rashid, the Abbasid Caliph. And while he did restore some Roman aqueducts (in Lebanon), he also built new ones, like Mecca’s Aqueduct of Zubayda (named after his wife, who sponsored the project). And the caliphs also sought honor and public approval by building massive public works. It’s switching subjects a little, but Cairo was also fed by a massive aqueduct, built by Ahmad ibn Tulun.
I’m not trying to downplay Roman engineering skill, which was spectacular, but they weren’t the only ones to build aqueducts or public work projects.
Not on that scale, though, unless you count the truly vast (and dead) slave armies which put together some of the large Chinese works. Really, it all comes down to Superior. What does the speaker mean by that? Roman engineering certainly was something special, both for its time and even later. Few nations could even hope to match the scale of Roman water and sanitation.
Romans used water from surrounding mountains so they would have water pressure and be able to run the water through pipes. If you have street level canals, then you can’t do that. The Romans also used pipes for siphons to get across some gaps.
There is a an extensive discussion of this subject in L. Sprague DeCamp’s The Ancient Engineers.
And how does the information that Romans were familiar with water pressure change the definition of acqueduct?
I was replying AK84 article about the hydraulic works in Cordoba.
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200603/the.art.and.science.of.water.htm
Because that meant that the Romans could do a lot of things with aqueducts that other people couldn’t.
The thing was that in the Roman Empire, it wasn’t just the Emperor doing this. Private Citizens also competed with each other by building public works.
The Romans also had a stronger concept of efficiency than other peoples. There were able to construct massive engineering works in a fraction of the time other people did.
I will concede that Indian iron work was superior. Damascus steel was actually made in India. The Indians actually made suspension bridges with iron chains.
Not really. I mean, you had some of that in the Late Republic, but during the Empire, pretty much all major infrastructure works were paid for by the government. And I’m not sure how you’d compare Roman efficiency to Abbassid efficiency.
But as to the water pressure comment, I don’t understand it. The Romans knew about water pressure, yes, but they weren’t the only ones to. A lot of people knew about water pressure and designed waterworks to take the principles into account.
… but enough about their decadence…
no, I have no idea what that means, either