Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > History and Archeology

Different amphitheatres?

<< < (9/9)

*Alex:
After your explanation I think that you are probably correct Pax, in that the walls are too thin for a city or fortress gate. After I had written my post, I had a rethink and was considering maybe a monumental gateway into a forum or somesuch, but unfortunately I was out driving my car and was unable to comment until now.

Lol, you can treat my previous post with the contempt it deserves.  ;D ;D

Alex.

Pax Orbis:
Hello All:
No contempt here! LOL Everyone is entitled to  treat me as an idiot one time per day, maybe two :-) !
Mr. Lordbest:  if 10:37 AM is early in the morning you must be young indeed! :-)
You could be correst that the walls are disasembled.  In fact you I think you are correct, just not in the way you are asserting.  The low stone walls are clear evidence of disassembly, but not of thickness but of length.  The stones appear to be of the same type, and the dimensions of the stone wall I think support my version of disassmbly.  I can see no evidence that thickness was removed, no trace of foundation, no rubble, no sign to me that could support this assertion of thickness disassembly.   Also, I think to reclaim a building in the manner you are thinking would be quite destructive, to leave this thin sliver of arch standing and yet demolish the balance is highly unlikely.  Far more probable that the only alteration to this wall has been caused by time, not human relcaimation.   The low stone walls are the original building material of the outer walls, this material represents the circumference not the breadth.  I cannot be certain that it is a Principia, I am certain that the structure at Lambaesis is not exclusive in design to that region.  It survives so well preserved because of the arid climate, is bulit from local material, and is simply representative of the architectural design.  The Romans did not design bulidings in a regional design pattern.  Within the limits of local material resource, they consistently duplicated sound engineering designs.  They Romanized a regions architecture not vice versa.
This structure could not by its locale duplicate the famous example of which we speak, the bulding materials were far different than available in "Afro-Rome" (dang that term makes me smile :-) never heard of that, how about Roman Italian African Arabic Citizen? :-)    )  but the design elements are fairly consistent.  Personally I would not confuse scale with military granduer, or poor quality remains with evidence of thickness reduction.  I am confident that the sound engineering design itself provides military intimidation a plenty, regardless if the scale cannot match the splendid remaining example of Lambaesis.  I am convinced that all evidence points to an interior military structure, with design elements common to Roman practice, the Principia to me the most likely candidate.  The fact that eyewitness accounts point to a military camp supports, I think, my position.  Are these accounts to be believed?  I do not know and would like to hear a bit more to support the villagers.    Mr. Lordbest, you pose interesting points, points I will consider with much attention,  to try to validate your position.  I think you are making too many assumptions that cannot be supported, unless the most amazing, laws of physics denying,  demolition job of the middle ages is pictured.  I am sorry, but you are going to have to provide me with much more evidence before I change my mind.  Maybe once you are more awake, say around 8:00 pm you can provide a bit more coherent arguements.  :-)   You are correct, city walls did represent a cities wealth, however, no city wall is built with decoration in mind.  Decoration may have been used, but were never the main purpose.  They would not have been bulit in a decorative manner, this would not fit the practical Romans at all.  The more wealth a city had determined the building material that was used not their level of functionality, all city or fort walls were made to repulse attack to the best of the residents abilities, including wealth.  Typically the most economical material available that would provide a practical, not decorative wall was used, the vast majority were made of earth and timber.  The Romans did not care one bit about decorative if it sacrficed utility or safety.  In the end I think it is going to prove impossible to say with any authority what this gate really is, at least not from a picture.
Very interesting topic, thank you. Pax 

Nico Creces:
Hello Pax Orbis: you asked about some more evidence to support the claims of the villagers.
What do I know ::):
1. the gate stands about 2 km from the arena (estimate of the arena by archeologists: 5000 heads)
2. the picture was taken standing on a nearby road
3. the town "guide" showed me the gate (on the way to the arena) and said that it was a gate remaing from a camp of a roman legion. (His information came from the things he picked up from the archeologists). If I can remember he even called the number of the legion, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone can trace it somewhere if there was a wintercamp of a roman legion in the middle of Croatia (in the neighbourhood of today's Knin, Dalmatia).
That's all I have.
I hope it was of some help.
 ;)
Nico

Nico Creces:
2 more pics

Robert_Brenchley:
I'm not sure that a gate would necessarily have had thick walls. The only details I have to hand relate to the excavation of a Roman camp at Inchtuthil in Scotland. Here the gates were wooden, and probalbynot of any great strength; they certainly wouldn't have withstood attack from heavy catapults. But then they didn't have to. As far as I can make out, the 'barbarians' genrally fought in groups of light infantry or cavalry, relying on speed of maneuver rather than heavy siege tactics. The contrast between Jewish and Roman tactics in the early phases of the siege of Jerusalem shows this well; the Romans relied on conventional siege tactics, involving the building of ramps to reach the top of the walls, and the use of siege engines, etc. The Jews, on the other hand, made a long series ofsurprise attacks on the troops outside the walls, and appear to have affected morale badly.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page