Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Razgovory]

Most Roman roads are in pretty poor shape.

[Iormlund]

I'm guessing survivorship bias is not something most Facebook meme creators are aware of.

[crazy canuck]

I'm guessing survivorship bias is not something most Facebook meme creators are aware of.

I think Tyr's family would think you are talking about the TV show.

[DGuller]

Did Roman chariots travel at 60+ mph and weigh multiple tons?

No, chariots were drawn by horses, so they couldn't reach anywhere near 60 mph, even at peak speed.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Yeah, that one is from several years ago. 

[DGuller]

Serious question, what is the real story with the Roman roads, from the engineering economics point of view.  Is it:

1)  The roads were usually not that good, it's just that the few unusually well-engineered roads in good climate survived, so some assume that all roads were built that well.
2)  The roads really were that good, but vastly over-engineered from the economic point of view.  The Romans would've been economically better off building lower quality roads at much lower price, had they possessed the technology to do so.  In civil engineering, the trick is usually not to make something last, but to make something last for the acceptable price.
3)  The roads weren't really that good given how they were used.  Obviously it's much more difficult to make the roads last if they're used by trucks rather than horses.  We could make the roads even better much more cheaply if all we need them for is foot and horse traffic.

[Admiral Yi]

You left off salt.  Salting roads kills them.  If I'm not mistaken, potholes are pretty much unknown in warmer places.

[Oexmelin]

The engineer complaint was very common from my father and my father's coworkers as well. It echoed the sense that experience on the factory floor was increasingly dismissed, in favor of young people who would never condescend to rub elbows with the unwashed masses.

[Iormlund]

Serious question, what is the real story with the Roman roads, from the engineering economics point of view.  Is it:

1)  The roads were usually not that good, it's just that the few unusually well-engineered roads in good climate survived, so some assume that all roads were built that well.
2)  The roads really were that good, but vastly over-engineered from the economic point of view.  The Romans would've been economically better off building lower quality roads at much lower price, had they possessed the technology to do so.  In civil engineering, the trick is usually not to make something last, but to make something last for the acceptable price.
3)  The roads weren't really that good given how they were used.  Obviously it's much more difficult to make the roads last if they're used by trucks rather than horses.  We could make the roads even better much more cheaply if all we need them for is foot and horse traffic.

I'm no expert, but I'd guess there were different types of roads, just like we have now.

The ones that survive in good condition to this day are those that were deemed important enough to go the extra mile (hah).

[HVC]

Having worked with engineers I agree many are stupid. But they're not stupid because they're engineers, they just happen to be stupid AND engineers . Some of stories are funny in retrospect like a 1000 lb overengineered ladder

[Iormlund]

The engineer complaint was very common from my father and my father's coworkers as well. It echoed the sense that experience on the factory floor was increasingly dismissed, in favor of young people who would never condescend to rub elbows with the unwashed masses.

I've seen this play out a lot. Both as an automation and later a manufacturing engineer. And from both sides.

My primary tool is my laptop, but I carry spanners, screwdrivers or at least feeler gauges. And, since I'm around plenty of dirt, grease and oil I dress closer to a tech than an office worker (usually work pants or jeans and a company polo/t-shirt).

However I'm clearly too clean to be a maintenance tech, which means I'm too "elitist" for many in the shop floor.
And at the same time, since I'm not wearing expensive shirts and such, I also get looked down upon by those whose job basically revolves around Powerpoint presentations, Excel sheets and days full of non-stop meetings. In their minds they are the "real engineers".

[Malthus]

There are a bunch of different factors.

Labour for the Romans was relatively cheap (they could use slaves). The materials used, such as stone flags, were very durable. The purpose of the roads was primarily military - to be able to march troops to any part of the empire quickly. So a massive investment in very durable major roads made sense. The wear on such roads tended to be less than on modern roads - no gigantic trucks - so the surface wasn't as worn. The Romans were not using high speed vehicles, so facing the roads with stone flags was okay for them. They needed a network of major roads to move troops about, and the side-roads didn't have to be as durable (and have not lasted).

In modern times, we want *lots* of roads capable of handling comparatively gigantic vehicles going at great speed, and build quickly and as cheaply as possible, where labour costs are high. The result is highways and byways that are not as durable, and require more maintenance. We could not afford to build every road to last forever, nor is it particularly desirable to do so.

Every engineering choice is a trade off of more or less desirable features. Ours is better suited to our particular needs. Part of the trade-off for smooth and comparatively cheap ashphalt road facing is that it must be maintained.

[Josquius]

How many roman roads have actually survived?
I know the routes of many roman roads form the core of major roads around the former parts of the empire today....but they've largely been built and rebuilt over the centuries to be unrecognisable.

There are bits of roman road in more out of the way places that are still recognisable I know. But is this so much?

[Iormlund]

Quite a few. And I'd wager most of those that disappeared did so because they were a convenient source of worked stone for the next 2 millennia.

[The Brain]

Serious question, what is the real story with the Roman roads, from the engineering economics point of view.  Is it:

1)  The roads were usually not that good, it's just that the few unusually well-engineered roads in good climate survived, so some assume that all roads were built that well.
2)  The roads really were that good, but vastly over-engineered from the economic point of view.  The Romans would've been economically better off building lower quality roads at much lower price, had they possessed the technology to do so.  In civil engineering, the trick is usually not to make something last, but to make something last for the acceptable price.
3)  The roads weren't really that good given how they were used.  Obviously it's much more difficult to make the roads last if they're used by trucks rather than horses.  We could make the roads even better much more cheaply if all we need them for is foot and horse traffic.

My impression is that they were good roads engineered to a rational degree.