[HN Gopher] Aqueduct of Constantinople: Managing longest water c...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Aqueduct of Constantinople: Managing longest water channel of the
       ancient world
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 67 points
       Date   : 2021-05-11 12:12 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | Naga wrote:
       | > Aqueducts were not a Roman invention, but in Roman hands, these
       | long-distance aqueducts were developed further and extensively
       | diffused throughout one of the largest empires in history
       | 
       | Roman water management is one of my interests (ask my wife, she
       | will tell you that it's annoying how much I talk about
       | aqueducts). The real invention though wasn't the aqueduct,
       | although they definitely are engineering feats, since they
       | require reasonably precise measurements and construction over
       | long distances. The real innovation though was being able to
       | maintain (relative) peace over their territory. Aqueducts are
       | large and imposing, but also fragile and impossible to defend.
       | Defending Rome's aqueducts required keeping the enemy out of
       | Italy, for example. Rome's real success was over that part, not
       | necessarily just the construction.
        
         | simmerup wrote:
         | I read that the aqueducts were a massive help for
         | Constantinople during sieges. I always wondered why the
         | attackers never destroyed the aqueducts, do you happen to know?
        
           | bwanab wrote:
           | Most enemies the Romans (they called themselves Romans
           | through the final loss in 1453) that were strong enough to do
           | threaten the aqueducts were on the other side of the straits.
           | The Roman navy was strong enough to prevent large scale
           | assaults on the European side. Occasional disruptions
           | occurred, but when they became more than occasional was when
           | the city really stared to weaken.
        
           | Naga wrote:
           | Great question. I am not too familiar with Constantinople's
           | waterworks (I've been reading mostly about Rome itself). Off
           | the top of my head, could be related to exactly where the
           | aqueducts were built or placed. Parts may or may not be
           | easily accessible, or underground in areas. Besiegers would
           | also have to know they are there, since it wasn't as easy to
           | google as it is now a days.
           | 
           | Quick search though shows that it had been cut during at
           | least one siege:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(626).
           | The key is that you don't have to destroy the entire
           | structure during a siege too, you just have to break ti
           | enough that water doesn't flow through anymore.
        
             | simmerup wrote:
             | Thanks that makes sense
        
             | hinkley wrote:
             | If you plan to take the city, you have to break it without
             | causing it to destroy itself. Water where it's not supposed
             | to be can flood. It can undermine footings and destroy
             | massive structures including itself.
             | 
             | If you want to destroy a fort you might throw a dead animal
             | in the well. If you plant to keep the fort, that would be a
             | titanically stupid idea.
             | 
             | You can cut off food supply and restore it the moment your
             | flag is flying. Hell, you can stand the wagons on a hilltop
             | as part of negotiating a surrender. How do you divert a
             | river and put it back on demand, with not even medieval
             | technology?
        
               | LaMarseillaise wrote:
               | > How do you divert a river and put it back on demand,
               | with not even medieval technology?
               | 
               | Now I am wondering how Kurus handled this situation after
               | he took Babylon.
        
               | hinkley wrote:
               | Floodplains are weird, for one thing.
               | 
               | On a small scale you can improve a stream by forcing the
               | water to turn, using stones or posts driven into the
               | water. If you have the ability to build a bridge, you
               | have some ability to change the direction of the water.
               | 
               | In a floodplain or alluvial fan, all of the land is
               | sediment from the river, which means that at flood stage
               | the river has been _everywhere_ and during a flood, or
               | over geologic time periods, the banks of the river can
               | shift. Oxbow lakes are old bends in the river that
               | straightened themselves out.
               | 
               | In theory, if you had a city that was built beside the
               | new banks of a river, you could go upstream and rechannel
               | the river to an old course, either to expand the city or
               | for nefarious purposes.
               | 
               | Also Babylon is, I think, a weird case anyway. If you
               | look at a map of the Fertile Crescent, you see that the
               | Euphrates forks, and it forks a LOT. And Babylon is
               | located between two of the outer forks. Convincing a
               | river that forks to chose another fork might just require
               | some megalithic technology - throw some big rocks in
               | until the flow rate slows rather than stops, and
               | evaporation takes care of some of the rest. Or a phalanx
               | of pilons all driven into the shadow of the next one up
               | river (think geese in flight), which is how you divert a
               | stream.
               | 
               | Even if the river doesn't stop, it might not have enough
               | clear water in it to sustain a city under siege.
               | Especially if you can get them to surrender before the
               | next rainy season washes away all your hydraulic
               | engineering.
        
               | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
               | I wonder if that was actually a myth to hide the fact
               | that he had inside collaboraters.
               | 
               | The priests of Marduk in Babylon hated Nabonidis due to
               | his abandonment of Marduk worship and making another city
               | his headquarters.
               | 
               | It may have been more acceptable to the population to
               | tell them that the Persians diverted a river at night and
               | entered rather than saying the gates were opened by
               | insiders.
        
           | teleforce wrote:
           | As they have always said, if you want to have good housing
           | estates, there are three sound advices, location, location
           | and location.
           | 
           | Personally I have been to Istanbul and the only main reasons
           | I can think of Constantinople did not fall much earlier
           | because of its strategic location at the edge of peninsular
           | surrounded by natural three water/sea barriers and its
           | extensive aqueduct systems.
           | 
           | Imagine the constant barrage of attacks from the Muslim
           | Empires namely Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman over the course
           | of around 700 years. This is due to prophecy that
           | Constantinople will eventually fall to the Muslim army and
           | only the best army General will prevail[1].
           | 
           | The attacks and sieges was started during by the Umayyad
           | Empire in 674 and only in the year 1463 Sultan Fatih managed
           | to finally subdue Constantinople for good. The only other
           | time Constantinople was conquered happened during the
           | Crusades'sacking in the year 1204. The Crusade invasion is
           | only temporary and only lasted until 1261.
           | 
           | But the turning points of both of the successful sieges are
           | very different. The Fatih's armies do not have direct access
           | from the mainland and they do not have significant number of
           | Christian Latin supporters in the Byzantine Empire and inside
           | the fortress, unlike the Crusaders. The Ottoman basically
           | have to resort to clever maneuvers like literally carrying
           | the warships over hills to overcome the multiple chains
           | barracades along the Golden Horn. The Ottoman was victorious
           | probably due to conventional military strength and tactics
           | but oblivious on the importance of aqueducts system
           | supporting the lifeline of the city. The Crusades however,
           | probably much aware of the importance aqueducts to the city
           | due to their significant number of local Christian Latin
           | supporters and managed to strangle Constantinople out of its
           | lifeline. The recapture of Constantinople from the Crusade to
           | reinstate the Byzantine Empire, however, is much easier
           | because the Nicaean Empire obviously know the city inside out
           | and the aqueduct systems.
           | 
           | This is my pure speculation based on my limited readings and
           | observations of Istanbul, and more research needed to verify
           | the potential causes of the fall of Constantinople and the
           | importance of its aqueduct systems.
           | 
           | [1]https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2015/05/29/the-
           | conquest-o...
           | 
           | [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople
        
         | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
         | Rome also was able to use its building prowess for military
         | ends like few other powers.
         | 
         | Examples are Masada and Alesia. How do you assault a military
         | fortress that sits on a shear cliff?
         | 
         | You either build a set a walls all the way around the city and
         | starve it out (Alesia) or you build a giant ramp that is slopes
         | gently enough to get your army and siege engines to the walls
         | of the fortress(Masada).
         | 
         | Also the bridge of Apolonius was a major help in enabling
         | Trajan to invade Dacia.
        
       | boomboomsubban wrote:
       | >One of the most imposing bridges, that of Balligerme, was blown
       | up with dynamite in 2020 by treasure hunters who erroneously
       | believed they could find gold in the ruins.
       | 
       | What? I couldn't find anything else about this story, but my
       | search revealed an even more bizarre story where Bulgarian
       | treasure hunters blew up a Roman bridge looking for Turkish
       | treasure. Only a millennia or so off on their dating.
       | 
       | http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/2016/02/23/treasure-hunters...
        
         | space_ghost wrote:
         | That section caught my eye as well, and my search turned up
         | this [0] result. "According to gossip, which is spoken among
         | the people and is not essential, those who made these works put
         | the gold among the stones and asked the people to use it in
         | times of absence." ... that's quite an odd legend. Gold
         | certainly wouldn't be a component of the construction itself,
         | and it makes absolutely no sense to embed your critical
         | infrastructure project with a strong motivation to destroy it.
         | 
         | [0] https://www.archyde.com/urban-legend-has-
         | destroyed-1600-year...
        
           | hinkley wrote:
           | Bridges _are_ gold. Anyone who tells you they aren 't lives
           | by a stream, not a proper river.
           | 
           | In Bangledesh there are families who build living bridges
           | that their children and grandchildren will be the first to
           | use.
           | 
           | I've lived consecutively in two areas for which I thought,
           | "they need more bridges here" and if you stop to think about
           | it, impassable terrain informs just about everything you do.
           | I don't think most flatlanders ever really internalize this.
           | 
           | I-5 in Seattle is in a really stupid spot for a modern city,
           | stretching it out like a noodle. But where else were you
           | going to put it? Water on both sides and hilly terrain
           | everywhere in between. Parts of it - miles of it really - are
           | built into a hillside because in some places there's nowhere
           | else and in others there's a narrows where it can cross
           | water.
        
         | oceliker wrote:
         | I did a search in Turkish and found this video (I timestamped
         | it to the relevant drone footage):
         | https://youtu.be/DHkxKc3ah0w?t=538
        
       | oogetyboogety wrote:
       | I love how this podcast specifically addresses water management
       | and hydraulic civil engineering as a main factor in the success
       | in every ancient civilization https://youtu.be/2JHCfe86A8U
       | 
       | It's a good link for context on constantinople
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-05-11 23:01 UTC)