Bridge Building too late?

Cort Haus · August 4, 2003, 07:34

Is Engineering too late in the tech tree for bridge-building?

Whilst discussing the history of London on another forum, I mentioned how the Romans needed a crossing over the Thames, which then needed a substantial garrision, and the city of Londinium was born. ISTR that the archeological/historical record suggests the bridge was built between 50 and 60AD.

Now, it's true that in most of my Civ games the middle ages have arrived by around this time, but at the risk of winding vmxa1 up

, I'd say that 2000 years ago is generally considered the ancient era. If was, after all, Rome's day.

So, if a city like London was founded 2000 years ago because of a bridge, is it not fair to say that bridge-building is an ancient tech?

It would certainly help the Iroquois/Gallic Swordie rushes!

Panag · August 4, 2003, 08:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Is Engineering too late in the tech tree for bridge-building?

Whilst discussing the history of London on another forum, I mentioned how the Romans needed a crossing over the Thames, which then needed a substantial garrision, and the city of Londinium was born. ISTR that the archeological/historical record suggests the bridge was built between 50 and 60AD.

Now, it's true that in most of my Civ games the middle ages have arrived by around this time, but at the risk of winding vmxa1 up

, I'd say that 2000 years ago is generally considered the ancient era. If was, after all, Rome's day.

So, if a city like London was founded 2000 years ago because of a bridge, is it not fair to say that bridge-building is an ancient tech?

It would certainly help the Iroquois/Gallic Swordie rushes!

hi ,

build a city near a river and you dont need a bridge , .......

have a nice day

Cort Haus · August 4, 2003, 08:46

Panag,

Now I see why your post count is so high.

Wittlich · August 4, 2003, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Panag,

Now I see why your post count is so high.

But back to the subject, I agree Cort Haus, bridge building should be ancient tech.

Tiberius · August 4, 2003, 11:30

The romans built a bridge across the Danube into Dacia around 100AD, and they didn't found a city there, just built a bridge. Not only that, but they constructed a bridge over the Rhine, too.

But AFAIK no other civilization was able to build bridges across big rivers at the time. Maybe only industrious civilizations should have this ability before Engineering. However "industrious" is the best trait as it is, there's no need to improve it.

If industrious would lose some of its advatageous in C3C (like workers irrigating faster, which could strenghten the a agricultural trait) then crossing rivers before Eng (for. ex after Construction) would make sense for industrious civs.

Cort Haus · August 4, 2003, 12:46

Construction sounds a good tech for bridge-building - but I suppose it depends how big 'big' is. The Thames was much wider in those days - so an impressive undertaking. Where was the site of the Danube crossing in today's geography?

Also, did the Greeks or Egyptians not do bridges? I'd have thought that a bridge was no harder than a pyramid. Wetter, but a smaller project.

Tiberius · August 4, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Where was the site of the Danube crossing in today's geography?

Between Romania and Serbia. The Danube is quite big/wide in this area.

After a little search, here is some data I was able to find about that bridge: it was 1135 m long and 18 m wide. It was built between 102-105AD, by the greek ?? architect Apolodor the Damascene (from Damascus) at the orders of the roman emperor, Trajan. It was used by the roman army to cross the Danube when they attacked Dacia. It was then guarded on both sides by two fortresses. The remnants on the northern fortress (castrum in latin), Drobeta, can still be seen today.

Kuciwalker · August 4, 2003, 18:28

I agree it should be with Construction. Engineering is just way too late.

Cort Haus · August 5, 2003, 07:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
Between Romania and Serbia. The Danube is quite big/wide in this area.

Thanks, Tiberius - I've found Dobreta on the map. If I ever get to vist Serbia or Romania I'd like to see it.

According to a guy I read on a forum years ago, the Dacians were an Illyrian tribe, (as the Albanians claim to still be), who were overrun by Rome, and the newcomers changed the name to Romania to reflect the new facts-on-the-ground.

If so, the bridge on the Danube would be as crucial to the history of Romania as London Bridge came to be for Britain.

Panag · August 5, 2003, 08:22

hi ,

http://www.ku.edu/history/index/euro...dges/home.html

http://www.3dcafestore.com/rombridandaq.html

http://www.aitken.demon.co.uk/romanbriges.htm

http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com...=9780521393263

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache....aspx?ID=35913

http://www.mmdtkw.org/VBridgesSublicius.html

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/portal/defa...p?belgeno=2111

http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Rome-Tiber.htm

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/...ort/roads.html

http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts.../Europe/Italy/

http://www.cbel.com/bridges_building_types/

http://www.provencebeyond.com/history/romanh.html

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge

http://www.karr.net/dir/Arts/Archite.../Europe/Italy/

http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/inter...sh_bridge.html

have a nice day

Panag · August 5, 2003, 08:37

hi ,

some more info on the thames bridge , btw , each one of those large bridges was always proteced by a large ( +- 2000 ) force , a legion was never to far away and needless to say that always a small town was founded not to far away , ....

http://www.britainexpress.com/London/roman-london.htm

http://www.lamas.org.uk/abstracts/jones1980.html

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba9/ba9news.html

http://www.britannia.com/history/londonhistory/

http://www.britishheritage.com/bhormnlndn.htm

http://www.lobeg.com/lobeg/king.html

http://www.museum-london.org.uk/fram...ierdiscov.html

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/...the_thames.htm

have a nice day

Tiberius · August 5, 2003, 08:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus

According to a guy I read on a forum years ago, the Dacians were an Illyrian tribe, (as the Albanians claim to still be), who were overrun by Rome, and the newcomers changed the name to Romania to reflect the new facts-on-the-ground.

Not exactly. The roman province was named Dacia, IIRC. The romans stayed aprox. 250 years after which they withdraw. These are facts. From here the rest is speculation.

The romanians claim that only the army and the administration left and that the colonists stayed. The Dacians and their Roman conquerors intermarried and formed what would become the Romanian nation; the process is called Romanization.

Basically everybody else believe (or so I know) that this is only romanian propaganda. Historical evidence also suggest this. So this other theory claims that the romans withdraw for good, with settlers, colonists, kids, dogs, etc, you got it. The romanians came only later from south of the Danube and settled in and around the Charpatian mountains only much later (1000 years later). I found this second hypothesis much more plausible, given the fact that no evidence, none whatsoever was found to prove the first theory. There is a thousand years period of missing data, when countless numbers of migrating tribes and barbarians crossed this area (avars, huns, bulgarians, hungarians, etc ) without mentioning a nation that supposedly lived here, strong enough to resist to all those invaders.

Next facts we know for sure:
- starting with the 10th century hungarian (magyar) colonists settled the area west from the Charpatian mountains, in the Pannonian Fields. They ruled it until the 16th century, when the ottomans conquered basically all of south-east Europe and destroyed the hungarian kingdom, which fell into pieces. The population of Hungary halfed in that period, allowing for other nationalities to fill in the empty space, especially near the border.
The first written source mentioning the Vlachs (romanians) in Transylvania is from the 13th century. The romanians ruled two (small) provinces, Wallachia and Moldavia, most of the time being vassals of their strong neighbours: ottomans, poles or hungarians. No nation called the Vlach people as Romanians until the late 19th century. French crusaders called them "Blach", the neighboring Greeks and Slavs knew them as Vlach, while Hungarians have known them as "Olah", which derives from "Volach".

Anyway, regardless of what has happened after the romans left, the bridge on the Danube is an important historical monument proving once again the greatness of the roman empire.

Sorry for the off topic post.

Panag · August 5, 2003, 08:45

hi ,

the roman danube bridge ;

http://www.structurae.de/en/structur...a/str03932.php

http://www.iowalum.com/voyagers/danube3.html

http://www.mtromania.ro/oferta_eng/a...the_danube.htm

http://www.ku.edu/history/index/euro...condary/SMIGRA*/Pons.html

http://www.roman-empire.net/children/builders.html

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1994/94.10.23.html

http://www.hdg.de/eurovisionen/html_eng/sitemap.html

http://www.geocities.com/cogaionon/article4.htm

http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.c...sideofcolumn+3

http://www.vlada.gov.sk/temy/moststu..._mosta_en.html

http://www.rpi.edu/~grivad/education.../t_roman2.html

http://www.dr-savescu.com/history/Bureb_e.html

http://ancient-coin-forum.com/ancien..._of_trajan.htm

btw , with the record low water levels now in the danube some stone foundations have been found this week , ....

have a nice day

Panag · August 5, 2003, 08:51

hi ,

some info about the Roman legions , ....

enjoy

http://webpages.charter.net/bruegge...f-contents.html

http://www.romanlegion.com/

http://www.rlqm.com/

http://www.caerleon.net/history/army/

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion

http://www.culturalresources.com/Romleg.html

http://infotech.fanshawec.on.ca/fac...well/legion.htm

http://www.art-with-attitude.com/vi...an_legion2.html

http://www.quiknet.com/~fifi/index9.htm

have a nice day

Cort Haus · August 5, 2003, 12:27

Tiberius, Panag - many thanks for this background info. That's a splendid collection of links, Panag.

Panag · August 5, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Tiberius, Panag - many thanks for this background info. That's a splendid collection of links, Panag.

hi ,

no problem , any time

well just dont forget to cut , copy and paste it somewhere , .......

btw , is this helping you forward now , do you need more , .....

have a nice day

Arrian · August 8, 2003, 15:13

Bear in mind that the Romans were the exception, at least in their part of the world, and following the fall of the Empire, a lot of knowledge was temporarily lost (dark ages). I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Romans, in CivIII terms, had actually hit the early middle ages (engineering, monotheism) prior to their decline.

-Arrian

Wittlich · August 8, 2003, 18:52

You make a valid point Arrian.

Falconius · August 9, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I'd say that 2000 years ago is generally considered the ancient era. If was, after all, Rome's day.

Historians break down History into four major eras: Ancient, Classical, Medieval, and Modern. The Ancient era ends and the Classical era begins with the Golden Age of Greece (500 BC), shortly before the rise of Rome.

Panag · August 10, 2003, 06:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Bear in mind that the Romans were the exception, at least in their part of the world, and following the fall of the Empire, a lot of knowledge was temporarily lost (dark ages). I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Romans, in CivIII terms, had actually hit the early middle ages (engineering, monotheism) prior to their decline.

-Arrian

hi ,

true 100 % , unfortunatly this cant be reflected very well in the game , ......

have a nice day

Jamski · August 12, 2003, 15:03

BTW, on the subject of the Romanians, modern Romanian is unusual in the languages of the region as being the only one closely based on Latin. If you can read Italian, you'll understand Romanian too. Maybe more Roman than you might think, eh? The other countries surrounding have Slavic or Cyrillic languages.

-Jam

Tiberius · August 12, 2003, 15:37

So? Nobody said romanian wouldn't be a latin based language (yet it is a fact that there are more slavic based words in romanian than latin based ones) or that the romanians have nothing to do with the romans. The question was wether the romanians have anything to do with the dacians, who used to live in modern day Romania.
It is a not a big surprise that a nation coming from south of the Danube speaks a latin based language.

Btw, accidentally I speak romanian perfectly and I don't understand italian; maybe a few words. But yes, once you know one of them it's easy to learn the other one.

joncnunn · August 13, 2003, 18:09

Well, Yankees sometimes have trouble understanding Southerners, and Romaina is seperated from Italy by hundreds of miles, so it's not surprizing that it might be difficult to understand each other speaking.

On Romania having it's name, remember that after the split of the Roman Empire, what's refered to as historians as the Eastern Roman Empire and Brazianum[sp] Empire was refered to by the inhabiants as the Roman Empire, and the citizens considered themselves to be Roman. This empire lasted until the Turks conquered them several centuries later.

Back to the topic, The Roman Empire clearly had the tech for Engenering no later than 100 AD (and may have been the first to do so) so it's no surprize that they built bridges.

Catherdrials though weren't built until several centuries after Monotheism.