this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
32 points (100.0% liked)

For sharing illustrations of history

6 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is for sharing artwork of historical events, places, personages, etc. Scale models and the like also welcome!

founded 2 years ago
32
Roman vs. Modern Aqueducts (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 years ago by PugJesus to c/[email protected]
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The above feels wrong in several ways:

  • the Romans prefer to capture fresh streams, not build reservoirs.
  • I've never known of any Roman water intake that is built under water, because as in previous point, surface intake makes more sense.
  • The aqueducts would run above the city rather than below it.
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

  1. The Romans actually built a significant number of reservoirs (some of the earliest in Europe), and it makes sense to compare intake from reservoirs to maximize the comparison value of the image.

  2. I know next to nothing about aqueduct intakes so you might be right.

  3. It would go to central water towers, which would then run pipes beneath the city, but yes, the aqueduct itself would not lead directly below the city.