From what I see, the Romans didn’t go for great height in their buildings. I haven’t seen ant toweres built by the Romans that were spectacularly high. Was it because Roman brickwork was unsuitable for tall buildings? Anyway, does anybody know of any very tall buildings from Roman times? did they surpass medieval church steeples? 
I know they built apartment blocks 4 & 5 stories high.
Without elevators, not many people wanna go higher than that.
Bricks and stone are unsuitable for very tall buildings, because the taller you make them, the thicker the walls must be to support the building’s weight. (As a modern example, consider the famous City Hall of Philadelphia, whose tower is completely made out of brick, and supported by walls more than 20 feet thick.)
Elevators are also helpful.
Would aqueducts count?
These got pretty tall. According to this website, the tallest was 160 feet high, about as tall as a 15 story building. I think the Romans built as tall as they needed to, they just didn’t need to very often.
The collosseum was 48 meters (144 feet) high at its highest point. That’s pretty damn tall (cf. the aqueduct above) considering the material, that it was multi-storey, and that it was a full-on stadium with grandstand.
And it’s still that height, 2,000 years later!
As far as I know, nothing built for the 4,000 years following the construction of the Great Pyramid (of Khufu/Cheops) at Giza ever surpassed it in height (only in the 20th century did humans start building taller things) - so there’s an upper limit to how high the Romans must have built (unless there is an undocumented taller Roman building)
Bugger. Mod fixy?
The Romans seem to have done well in making stacked arch buildings, where one arch rests upon another. Aqueducts and the Colosseum were both built like this, minimizing weight.
The Pantheon, by the way, is listed as 142.5 feet tall.
Mangetout, the Eiffel Tower, built in 1889 (prior to the 20th century) is 1000 feet fall. The Pyramid of Giza was only 481 feet fall at construction. (I’m lazy, see Wikipedia articles for cites.)
Other buildings also predate the 20th century, and are taller than the pyramid at Giza.
The major problems with high structures are economic – how to make them worthwhile. Specific problems are the wasted (non-profitable) space needed for transport (stairways or elevator shafts) and strength & support structures on the lower floors. Modern steel grid skyscaper construction has solved the 2nd problem, but the first one remains a limiting factor on building height even today.
Some of the Roman aqueducts were fairly high, from 100-250 feet (30-70 m). (See File:Segovia Aqueduct.JPG - Wikipedia for a photo of one.)
But these were not occupied structures, so they didn’t have to worry about people climbing up stairs every day. And there were no living quarters on the lower floors, so the entire space could be used for a support structure.
The Washington Monument is one of several examples of taller structures completed before the 20th century.
OK, until the 19th century.
Thanks for the code assistance, Tomndebb.
I think that the Baths of Caracalla must be pretty close to the tallest the Romans got (aqueducts excepted, but then they’re a very different type of structure).
According to Wikipedia, they were an estimated 38.5 metres tall (125 feet). I have seen the ruins, and it is a very huge footprint–wiki says nearly 33 hectares!
Another site, with a couple of photos:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Thermae_of_Caracalla.html
Actually the Stasbourg Cathedral, started in 1176 and completed in 1439 surpassed the Pyramid of Giza in height.
I’m ignoring the higher spires of two previously built cathedrals since they are not confirmed.
I wonder, with that being the case, if it is even safe to assume that the Romans didn’t build something taller; they did go in for some pretty impressive engineering, and they had concrete, so it would not have been an impossible feat for them - just a question of whether or not they did it.
The Pantheon and Baths of Caracalla are also impressive in that they are VAULTED-- a single dome in the case of the Pantheon (143 foot diameter), and ginormous spans at Caracalla and, say, the basilica of Constantine and Maxentius (114 high nave vault). That’s more impressive, in my mind, than an insanely tall pile of large rocks or a bunch of bits of steel weleded together at 3 foot intervals.
(Strassbourg Cathedral hit 470 feet in 1625, which is a bit higher than Cheops)
(on preview I see I’ve been beaten to it, but the tower wasn’t built until 1625, so there!)
1625 is the year that the Strasbourg Cathedral became the tallest building because a previous spire on another cathedral burnt down. It was completed however in 1439
See Strasbourg Cathedral - Wikipedia
Ah, you are right. My bad.
A slight hijack about the Washington Monument: could a stone spire or pillar as tall as the Washington Monument been built in ancient times, or was it built using either materials or techniques not available to the ancients? (And no, I’m not counting the aluminium cap on the top.) As far as I’ve ever heard, the W.M. was expensive to build but presented no particular engineering challenge in it’s day. Yet few ancient edifices even came close to it’s height.
This seems unlikely. Trajan’s Column seems a good point of comparison for construction. With the base, this structure rises 38 meters, a little more than one-fifth the height of the Washington Monument. The column is really a stack of 18 marble drums, each weighing about 40 tons.
Material isn’t a problem (marble was even more aboundant in the ancient world than today), but the sheer height is. 40 tons was the extreme limit that Roman cranes could lift; as these were generally made from wood, their height was limited by the height of trees used. Temporary platforms and ramps could add to this height, but we’re talking about increasing height by a factor of four, which seems incredible even after acknowledging Roman ingenuity.
Sliding/rolling the drums up a ramp is a possibility, but it’s no small feat to construct a ramp that can support 40 tons at a height of 500 feet. If human power alone is used to push the stone, I can’t imagine more than ten men being able to apply force to the stone. Assume each man can push 200 lb., that’s 1 ton of force, and the ramp would have to be close to four miles long (OK, this is back-of-the-envelope, but it shows the tremendous problems involved).
Of course, I can’t say it’s impossible; perhaps the best argument against the Romans ability to build such a tall structure is the fact that they never did.
To hijack a hijack, for folks interested in ancient engineering, I recommend a PBS series entitled “Secrets of Lost Empires”, which sought answerrs to some amazing ancient engineering feats. My favorite episode was on the raising of an obelisk using techniques available to the ancient Egyptians (obelisks were constructed horizontally on the ground, then moved vertically on top of a platform after setting a bottom edge onto a special groove cut into the edge of the platform). The engineers of course come up with an elaborate system of pulleys, levers, and fulcrums that just doesn’t seem to work. A non-engineer comes up with what I thought was the correct solution: Enclose the platform in a huge wooden enclosure (top open), fill it with sand, push the obelisk on top of the sand, and let the sand flow out a hole in the bottom. This meant you had to carefully guide the stone as it sunk in the sand until it hit the turning groove, but this method had the advantage of actually working in the trials.