CORRESPONDENCE.
ROMAN ROADS.
[TO Tim EDITOR OF TOE "SPECTATOR."'
Sin,—The writer of the very interesting article on " Roads of Empire" in the Spectator of August 9th makes an incidental onslaught upon the Roman roadmakers, which I believe to be unsound. The passage runs :-
" Just as the dominion which we exercise over the subject peoples is wiser, more subtle, more scientific than was that of the Romans, just as it is our object to circumvent, rather than to break ruthlessly through, the obstacles that stay us, so the roads we build bear the imprint of a keener intelligence, a deeper know- ledge, and a higher skill than ever the Romans possessed. For with the old world-conquerors the primitive instinct still held its force,—the instinct that sends men, who desire to make their way from point to point, to the top of every hill and to the foot of every decline that they chance upon on their journey."
My view, and, as I believe, the view of all those who have studied Roman roads as closely as this writer has studied Oriental ones, is that the straightness of the Roman roads is partly justifiable and partly non-existent, and that the Roman engineers knew very well what they were about. Their work was not " primitive " at all; it was scientific, and adapted to the circumstances. The essential thing to be remembered is that the roads were military, and that security was, therefore, the first object to be aimed at, rapidity of concen- tration upon a threatened point the second. The latter end was obviously served by the greatest possible straightness; but it is also clear that in crossing a mountain pass the three great curves in which the Romans, for instance, took the Julier were far more defensible and less dangerous than the modern twenty-two. We have to remember, also, that the lower grounds, with the greater rainfall and the denser forests of antiquity, were more exposed to wet and flooding than they are now, and that there was thus a reason which does not now exist, or not in the same proportion, for going high. Further, the Roman road was by no means invariably straight. Lastly,
the modern road under suitable circumstances—for instance, in the Rhine Valley or the French Landes—is quite as straight as ever was the Roman one.
The following quotations will bear out, or throw light upon, the above contentions. In the course of his description of a Roman road in Eastern Asia Minor Mr. Hogarth writes (Supplementary Papers, Royal Geographical Society, LEI., 685) :— " Crossing a considerable stream, the traveller enters broken, pine-clad foothills, on whose slopes the old road can be seen more plainly than anywhere else. In the ease of its gradients, the bluntness of its curves, and the condition of its surface (though unpaved) it is far superior to the modern track beside it, and if cleared of brushwood, would make an araba road without further expenditure of labour, except in a few places where torrents have cut through it."
Another road in the same country, this time in Phrygia, is thus described by Professor W. M. Ramsay (" Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia," p. 751) :-
" In 1888 I started from Synnada with the intention of ex- ploring this route completely. We ascended the hills by the village Baijik-Hissar, above which is an ancient site on a rounded hill. Round the side of this hill, we for the first time caught the line of the Roman road; and for several miles we rode along a finely engineered path, the cuttings and curves of which are quite clear. I have seen no such instructive example of Roman
engineering skill At this stage we were high up on the mountains, and we reached a point whence we looked down towards the left into a great deep cleft, between two spurs, at the mouth of which lay the village Atly-Hissar. It was obviously impossible that a road suited for traffic could have been engi- neered up the steep sides of the cleft ; and the view from that point showed me how skilfully the road along which we had been rising by a gentle, continuous slope had been chosen by the Roman engineers."
It will be seen that the engineering skill displayed is amply recognised in both quotations. But if it be said that it is easy for a Roman road to make a good appearance in Asia Minor, with only Turks to beat, here is the verdict passed by the highly competent Swiss archaeologist, Dr. H. Meyer, on the Roman roads over the chief Alpine passes ("Die romischen Alpenstrassen in der Schweiz," 1861).
Of the Grand St. Bernard be says that the Roman road was so skilfully drawn that it served as a mule-track for centuries, and, indeed, Napoleon crossed by it with an army as late as 1800. It still serves the natives as a local road, as it touches a larger number of villages and farms on both sides of the river than does the new one. Of the Julier Pass, Dr. Meyer says that the Roman road took it in three zigzags, a later one in nine, and the modern road in twenty-two. The natives regret the Roman road, and declare that the modern one is too long and too much exposed to wind. As for the Bernardino, the Roman road is still much used in winter and spring. On the modern road there are places where the snow-drifts are often thirty feet deep, and when that happens the new road is abandoned for the Roman one, which avoided those dangerous spots. The muleteers are dis- satisfied with the new road, which is good for summer only, whereas the Roman road kept to the sunny side and showed care and skill in steering clear of the snow-drifts. Finally, Dr. Meyer sums up the results of his detailed examination of the Alpine passes with the remark that the Roman roads are " adapted to the character of the mountains and the conditions of the climate. The Roman engineers went to work with great circumspection, accurately studied their mountain, its torrents, storms, and special humours,' and chose a line on which the difficulties and dangers were reduced to the minimum possible."
It will be seen that there can be no question of the Roman engineers going at their work in the " primitive " and pig- headed manner of Orientals. Is it not, then, a fact that their roads are excessively and unnecessarily straight? How explain a case like that of the Roman road from Clermont to Limoges, with the obstacle of the Puy mountains in the way ? The two modern roads and the railway turn the range at either end, while the Roman road goes straight at and over it. From Clermont to the Simile Bridge the Roman road is the chord of the arc described by the railway. Cases of this kind do occur, and need explaining; but the explanation is not to be found in a supposed pedantic adherence to the principle of straightness at all costs. The need of military security, the unlimited supply of gratuitous or very cheap labour, the desire to avoid marsh or sodden forest, and the absence of the restrictions imposed by private property in an old and settled country account for much. " Natural obstacles," says the excellent American archaeologist, Mr. J. R. Sterrett, of the Roman roads he has examined in Asia Minor, "were skilfully overcome by the use of cuts, fills, bridges, culverts, embank- ments, and even tunnels. Stiff grades were avoided, and a level, once reached, was doggedly maintained, even at the expense of making cuts, fills, &c." In fact, the Roman road was more like a railway than a road as we conceive it, and should be judged as such. At the same time, straightness is not an absolute criterion of a Roman road. A road may be winding and yet Roman ; it may be straight and yet not Roman. General Popp, who has devoted many years to the study of the Roman roads in Bavaria, comes to the conclusion that the non- straight portions on those roads are to the straight ones as three to one. On some sJctions of the Roman road from Salzburg to Augsburg there are no straight bits at all. His conclusion is that small-scale maps have done the mischief, and that on close examination of the actual ground the straightness disappears. His views are stated in the sixteenth volume of the Westdeutsche Zeitschrift, which also contains a restatement of the traditional theory by that excel- lent archaeologist, Georg Wolff. Any one who wants to read an up-to-date discussion of the whole subject will find it there. Wolff's conclusion is that of common-sense,—namely, that straightness is one criterion of the Roman origin of a road, but by no means an absolute or infallible one. Other things being equal, the Romans preferred straightness, just as the modern railway prefers straightness, but they did not prefer it in an obstinate and " primitive" manner. They did not ride the principle to death.—I am. Sir, &c.,
WILLIAM T. ARNOLD. Chelsea.
Previous page
