Posts: 1,308
Threads: 193
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
4
Seems the Romans did not feel the same need for tall buildings as Christian architecture, particularly the Gothic, did. What types of high-rise buildings did the Romans create? I can think of three:
- residential buildings (clay brick residential towers of up to 12 stories in Roman Egypt)
- lighthouses (the extant examples at Dover and La Coruna appeared to be 30 m high)
- victory columns (the column of Marcus Aurelius, the largest, is ca. 40 m tall)
By comparison, even small towns of the Romanesque and Gothic periods could call church towers of 30-40 m their own.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Posts: 283
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
3
I guess the Hagia Sophia, the Pantheon and the lighthouse of Ostia are pretty tall; also some Aquaeducts are very tall.
The romans were pretty pragmatic. They have buildt high, if there was a need to do so.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Posts: 1,308
Threads: 193
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
4
The
Pantheon is as high as wide, 43.45 m. The pendentive dome of Hagia Sophia seems to be higher (55 m) despite its smaller diameter. The tallest aqueduct structure may be the
pressure towers of the Aspendos aqueduct, perhaps at a maximum of 40 m.
All these structures are still not substantially above 50 m. The Gothic built steeples up to 150 m.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Posts: 1,189
Threads: 33
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
Very tall structures are more characteristic of the Hellenistic era, when kings and cities competed in building the tallest and most grandiose structures -the Colossus of Rhodes, the Pharos lighthouse, etc. In fact, the tallest structure in Rome was probably not a building but the colossus of Nero (later Helios).
Pecunia non olet
Posts: 122
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
48m , the Pont du Gard. Taller than this, I can't remember. Romans were pragmatic, what would be the need of a tall building?
But what you call tall is just "high" ? Because the Circus Maximus was certainly a huge construction, even if it wasn't that high...
385 000 spectators could fit in there : never human kind built a so great sport arena.
Posts: 1,308
Threads: 193
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
4
The Alcantara bridge is more like 62 m high (48 m from stream bed to deck plus the triumphal arch of 14 m).
The
Subiaco dam was maximum 50 m high.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Posts: 21
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
Galata tower is/was 66.9 meters tall in istanbul. 1348 is rather late but still impressive anyway.
Posts: 1,308
Threads: 193
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
4
Quote:Tower of Hercules
What do you mean with
La structure intérieure restante fait aujourd’hui 11,75 m (ou 33 pieds romains). Aujourd’hui, 34 m de l’ancien phare sont toujours conservés au sein de la nouvelle structure de 55 m rénovée à la fin du XVIIIème siècle par Giannini.
Are the Roman remains now 11.75 m or 34 m high?
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Posts: 122
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
Oh, I forgot some words in my text. Ancient remnants are 11,75m large, the size of a side of the square base. And it's 34m high, so almost 3 times taller than large.
![[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]](http://static-media.com/rome/inaciem-bandeau.png)
