Persistance of Roads: Academic Study on Roman Roads

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Thought some civfanatics would be interested in this article, which discusses how the location of Roman roads continued to influence the development of European cities over the ensuing millenia:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/mark...oads-predict-modern-day-prosperity/ar-BBLHAWq

 

[WillowBrook]

Very cool, thanks for sharing!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

This is only one study, and Roman roads are pretty much a unique case. But one of the things I found interesting about this is the suggestion that trade followed roads rather than roads following trade.

Or in other words, as interesting as the Civ 6 Traders-build-roads mechanism may be, it's possible that prior iterations of Civ had more historically accurate mechanics: that roads require government intervention, and trade then blossoms where that investment has been made.

 

[Scaramanga]

This is only one study, and Roman roads are pretty much a unique case. But one of the things I found interesting about this is the suggestion that trade followed roads rather than roads following trade.

Or in other words, as interesting as the Civ 6 Traders-build-roads mechanism may be, it's possible that prior iterations of Civ had more historically accurate mechanics: that roads require government intervention, and trade then blossoms where that investment has been made.

The government intervenes by creating a trader unit.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is only one study, and Roman roads are pretty much a unique case. But one of the things I found interesting about this is the suggestion that trade followed roads rather than roads following trade.

Or in other words, as interesting as the Civ 6 Traders-build-roads mechanism may be, it's possible that prior iterations of Civ had more historically accurate mechanics: that roads require government intervention, and trade then blossoms where that investment has been made.

Actually, Roman Roads are not that unique. Archeology and historical data now indicate that most of the Roman Roads in Gaul were built over older Gallic roads. Caesar in his commentaries, for instance, gives the exact distances between Gallic towns, because those distances were marked on Gallic road signs! And even in the Imperial era, the Romans still measured distances in Gaul by old Gallic leagues instead of Roman Miles, because the measurements had all been made before the Romans took over the area.

Earlier, the Persian Empire had a Royal Road from Susa to the Aegean coast, built by the government to make sure than official travel and communications were secure and reliable from the Capital to the farthest western edge of the Empire. They also had a 'pony express' type message service that used the road.

And although Europeans had trouble recognizing them because they weren't built for wheeled vehicles, the Native Americans in South, Central and North America all had roads that were recognized routes of travel between tribes/states or among tribes/states. Famously, the Incas paved some of their with stone but even in 'primitive' North America routes were smoothed, cleared and graded so that runners could travel at speed with messages.

'Road Building' in short, goes back a long, long way, and is not always related to trade at all.

 

[Scaramanga]

Actually, Roman Roads are not that unique. Archeology and historical data now indicate that most of the Roman Roads in Gaul were built over older Gallic roads. Caesar in his commentaries, for instance, gives the exact distances between Gallic towns, because those distances were marked on Gallic road signs! And even in the Imperial era, the Romans still measured distances in Gaul by old Gallic leagues instead of Roman Miles, because the measurements had all been made before the Romans took over the area.

Earlier, the Persian Empire had a Royal Road from Susa to the Aegean coast, built by the government to make sure than official travel and communications were secure and reliable from the Capital to the farthest western edge of the Empire. They also had a 'pony express' type message service that used the road.

And although Europeans had trouble recognizing them because they weren't built for wheeled vehicles, the Native Americans in South, Central and North America all had roads that were recognized routes of travel between tribes/states or among tribes/states. Famously, the Incas paved some of their with stone but even in 'primitive' North America routes were smoothed, cleared and graded so that runners could travel at speed with messages.

'Road Building' in short, goes back a long, long way, and is not always related to trade at all.

If not related to trade then what? Surely having nice roads is not just an aesthetic thing. There must have been exchange of information, and not very good exchange if they didn't have writing. In any case the Cree get a free trader and Persia get better roads in the game.

 

[Haig]

Wait a minute, this thread isn't an in-depth look into playing Rome in Civ 6 and using roads.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

If not related to trade then what? Surely having nice roads is not just an aesthetic thing. There must have been exchange of information, and not very good exchange if they didn't have writing. In any case the Cree get a free trader and Persia get better roads in the game.

Command-and-control? Although writing was pretty key to that, too. Not many central governments can exercise effective control over their periphery without written records.

Were the Incan roads built for trade, or to allow the Inca to control his territory and collect his annual tributes? Substitute for the Inca any historical ruler you like.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If not related to trade then what? Surely having nice roads is not just an aesthetic thing. There must have been exchange of information, and not very good exchange if they didn't have writing. In any case the Cree get a free trader and Persia get better roads in the game.

Then related, as I stated, to Command and Control as in the Persian Empire. Even according to Herodotus and Strabo, the Persians were not particularly interested in trade or markets.
To reflect this 'alternate use' of their roads, in the game the Persians should get some kind of Loyalty boost in any city connected to the Palace by one of their 'roads', since the purpose of their roads was not especially trade as far as we can tell from the contemporary (Greek) observers.

The Gaulic roads were in fact related to trade, and they certainly did have written language - at last count there are over 800 Gaulic inscriptions that have been found dating back to 200 - 300 years before Caesar's conquest. What they may not have had is a separate alphabet or script: the bulk of the inscriptions are in Greek alphabet, with a few from northern Italy and just across the Alps in an archaic Italic script that are apparently older, so they may have learned to write their language down through contact with the Etruscans and/or with the Greek colonists in Massilia.

 

[Scaramanga]

Command-and-control? Although writing was pretty key to that, too. Not many central governments can exercise effective control over their periphery without written records.

Were the Incan roads built for trade, or to allow the Inca to control his territory and collect his annual tributes? Substitute for the Inca any historical ruler you like.

Same thing IMO, the tribute will have to make its way somehow, and may be intercepted en route by rebels. Traders/tax collectors: it's all the same in this game depending on where the trader originated.

 

[Scaramanga]

Then related, as I stated, to Command and Control as in the Persian Empire. Even according to Herodotus and Strabo, the Persians were not particularly interested in trade or markets.
To reflect this 'alternate use' of their roads, in the game the Persians should get some kind of Loyalty boost in any city connected to the Palace by one of their 'roads', since the purpose of their roads was not especially trade as far as we can tell from the contemporary (Greek) observers.

The Gaulic roads were in fact related to trade, and they certainly did have written language - at last count there are over 800 Gaulic inscriptions that have been found dating back to 200 - 300 years before Caesar's conquest. What they may not have had is a separate alphabet or script: the bulk of the inscriptions are in Greek alphabet, with a few from northern Italy and just across the Alps in an archaic Italic script that are apparently older, so they may have learned to write their language down through contact with the Etruscans and/or with the Greek colonists in Massilia.

The Persians didn't have any currency or exchange of goods of any kind? It could make sense if their subject peoples built the markets and wharfs initially. In the game tribute to the capital is done with the extra gold and culture with internal routes. Why should Persia get loyalty from trade routes if they're not a trading people? That's the realm ofthe Dutch.

 

[Socrates99]

I kind of like the trader roads from a gameplay standpoint. Takes some of the micromanagement out of the game. I have to admit it seems like there was a libertarian on the design team. Maybe you could postulate that the earliest paths between villages might have been traveling merchants but they sure as hell aren't the ones building freeways.

 

[Scaramanga]

I kind of like the trader roads from a gameplay standpoint. Takes some of the micromanagement out of the game. I have to admit it seems like there was a libertarian on the design team. Maybe you could postulate that the earliest paths between villages might have been traveling merchants but they sure as hell aren't the ones building freeways.

I would postulate that a lot of the freeway system was built by military engineers looking for something to do after World War 2.

 

[Socrates99]

They did for sure. The freeways were even called necessary for national security and that helped get them funded by Congress. The military saw how useful an advanced road system was on continental Europe and decided it was a necessity at home.

Today Congress would just say "how you gonna pay for that?" while burning money on a bloated Pentagon budget and unnecessary wars in the Middle East.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Persians didn't have any currency or exchange of goods of any kind? It could make sense if their subject peoples built the markets and wharfs initially. In the game tribute to the capital is done with the extra gold and culture with internal routes. Why should Persia get loyalty from trade routes if they're not a trading people? That's the realm ofthe Dutch.

To quote the Persian king himself: "... markets are where men (he was referring specifically to the Greeks) go to cheat each other." So no, they didn't use markets and their use for gold and silver was not as currency, but as ingots stacked up in Persepolis and Susa. Their understanding of economics was, shall we say, primitive. The people they ruled, of course, had other ideas, but the entire economy of the Persian Empire suffered from a serious lack of circulating coinage and regulated markets - when Alexander the Great got his hands on the Real Treasuries and sorted spending like the proverbial Drunken Sailor, the sudden mass of money chasing the same amount of goods caused massive inflation all over the middle east.

The point is that to the Persians, roads were not about trade at all, and while the game's insistence that Road = Trade Route is largely correct, it is not correct universally and specifically in the case of the Persian Royal Roads.

 

[Scaramanga]

To quote the Persian king himself: "... markets are where men (he was referring specifically to the Greeks) go to cheat each other." So no, they didn't use markets and their use for gold and silver was not as currency, but as ingots stacked up in Persepolis and Susa. Their understanding of economics was, shall we say, primitive. The people they ruled, of course, had other ideas, but the entire economy of the Persian Empire suffered from a serious lack of circulating coinage and regulated markets - when Alexander the Great got his hands on the Real Treasuries and sorted spending like the proverbial Drunken Sailor, the sudden mass of money chasing the same amount of goods caused massive inflation all over the middle east.

The point is that to the Persians, roads were not about trade at all, and while the game's insistence that Road = Trade Route is largely correct, it is not correct universally and specifically in the case of the Persian Royal Roads.

I agree with your understanding of the Persian attitude towards money, so I think the game is correct in giving them a free trade route at Political Philosophy, instead of forcing them to build commercial hubs and harbours. The Satrapies ability has the Royal Roads feel and trade routes become diplomatic messages this way.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

They did for sure. The freeways were even called necessary for national security and that helped get them funded by Congress. The military saw how useful an advanced road system was on continental Europe and decided it was a necessity at home.

Now that you say that, it occurs to me that Canada's major transportation systems were built primarily for political reasons, though with a recognition that they would have important economic consequences.

The creation of Canada and the creation of the transcontinental railway are intimately linked. B.C. was willing to join Confederation only on condition of a railroad through the Rockies, but all the provinces generally recognized that the polity couldn't function without the economic link provided by the railroad. Nor could they properly access the prairies or patrol it against American settlers without the railroad connection. This also led to the formation of the NWMP (now RCMP), which went west before the railroad but had as part of its mandate the objective of making sure the railroad could be built without disruption. So in Civ terms you had a Free City willing to join your empire only on condition that you build a railroad connection to them, the raising of a Cavalry unit to patrol the territory the railroad would be built through, and the creation of a group of Builders (at a cost that nearly bankrupted the state) to actually build the railroad.

More directly on the freeways point, the TransCanada Highway was built with federal funds to help knit the country closer together and provide an offset to the growing nationalist tide in Quebec. That it helped offset the more geographically natural north-south trade routes and better allowed Ontario to reach the western and Atlantic markets made it politically feasible, but it would never have been "built" on purely economic terms. (I put built in quotes as the TCH did involve new roads through some territory, but also involved upgrading a lot of existing roads to freeways.)

 

[Mr. Shadows]

That was an interesting read. It's amazing how the influence of Rome continues to shape (or not in some cases) modern life.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That was an interesting read. It's amazing how the influence of Rome continues to shape (or not in some cases) modern life.

More generally, unless the terrain and technology changes dramatically, people tend to travel the same routes for thousands of years: the trading path that carried Amber by pack or pack animal from the Baltic to the Mediterranean became a Trade Route that carried goods from central Europe to the Roman Rhine Frontier and the road, then railroad, that follows a similar route today. The passes through the Zagros Mountains between Persia and Babylon - or Iran and Iraq - have carried trails, roads and paved roads for thousands of years, and the passes carved through mountains by rivers in eastern and western USA carry both interstate highways and railroads.

If there was a single change to be made to the Civ VI roads, I'd like to see the algorithm for placing road/trade routes changed so that they always followed the Line of Least Effort:
1. Always follow a river when possible, changing to the coastal waters as soon as possible
2. Never duplicate: if there is already a Trade Route/road going part of the way, use it and don't start a new road until you have to.
3. Go around 'deadly ground' - deserts, tundra, swamp - if you possibly can. Even a slightly longer route is better than one that kills off half the men and animals in your caravan with every trip.
4. If you have to cross a desert, go from oasis to oasis or don't go at all.

In fact, I'd love to see terrain have more negative influence: deserts, tundra, rainforest/jungle and swamps were practically impassable to trade unless there was a river to follow or technology improved. In addition, having a Trading Post/City in such places meant not only that Trade Routes could be longer, it sometimes meant they were possible, and it always meant that their value in goods transported went Up, sometimes dramatically - and so you get 'desert cities' like Palmyra or Petra or the Taklamakan city states getting rich off the trade that flows through them.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

More generally, unless the terrain and technology changes dramatically, people tend to travel the same routes for thousands of years: the trading path that carried Amber by pack or pack animal from the Baltic to the Mediterranean became a Trade Route that carried goods from central Europe to the Roman Rhine Frontier and the road, then railroad, that follows a similar route today. The passes through the Zagros Mountains between Persia and Babylon - or Iran and Iraq - have carried trails, roads and paved roads for thousands of years, and the passes carved through mountains by rivers in eastern and western USA carry both interstate highways and railroads.

If there was a single change to be made to the Civ VI roads, I'd like to see the algorithm for placing road/trade routes changed so that they always followed the Line of Least Effort:
1. Always follow a river when possible, changing to the coastal waters as soon as possible
2. Never duplicate: if there is already a Trade Route/road going part of the way, use it and don't start a new road until you have to.
3. Go around 'deadly ground' - deserts, tundra, swamp - if you possibly can. Even a slightly longer route is better than one that kills off half the men and animals in your caravan with every trip.
4. If you have to cross a desert, go from oasis to oasis or don't go at all.

In fact, I'd love to see terrain have more negative influence: deserts, tundra, rainforest/jungle and swamps were practically impassable to trade unless there was a river to follow or technology improved. In addition, having a Trading Post/City in such places meant not only that Trade Routes could be longer, it sometimes meant they were possible, and it always meant that their value in goods transported went Up, sometimes dramatically - and so you get 'desert cities' like Palmyra or Petra or the Taklamakan city states getting rich off the trade that flows through them.

It's interesting that you see city centers where the roads intersect. It makes sense, even if the roads were built for military reasons they'll still foster trade. I know Atlanta, GA was originally just a railroad junction, and the community grew around it. Usually cities form near large bodies of water but the rail road hub was important enough at that point to create a city. As far as the game mechanic goes I feel like we've lost something now that roads are automatic and builders are instantaneous. I liked being able to place roads where I wanted them and I liked that they were a time investment. Having said that I'd love to see river movement, even if it were only for land units and maybe a special unit like the Longship.