The City in the Greek and Roman World

E. J. Owens

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781136754746
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Drawing on archaeology, literary and epigraphic evidence, professional and technical literature, and descriptions of cities by travellers and geographers, the author traces the developments of town planning, revealing the importance of the city to political, religious, and social life in the Greek and Roman world.

1

INTRODUCTION

The city was one of the fundamental institutions of the ancient world and as such was not confined to the civilisations of Greece and Rome. Cities had long been the basis of civilisation in the Near East, and indeed in this region urban life antedates by several centuries the emergence of cities in the Greek and the Roman world.¹ Nevertheless, the importance of the city in the political, religious and social life of both the Greeks and the Romans cannot be emphasised too strongly. The city was synonymous with civilisation and in opposition to barbarity and chaos. Two of the accusations which Homer levels at the uncivilised Cyclopes were that they had no assemblies for making laws and they had no sense of community beyond their immediate family.² Both of these qualities were considered crucial for orderly urban life. Thucydides equated urban life with stability, security and prosperity. In the introduction to his history of the Peloponnesian War, where he described the unsettled, dangerous and poverty-stricken times of early Greece, he maintained that the threat of invasion resulted in a transitory population, who did not build large cities and lacked substantial resources.³ Furthermore, the city was the agency through which the Graeco-Roman way of life was disseminated throughout the Mediterranean, Europe and the Near East. An urban building programme was one of the ways in which Tacitus’ father-in-law, Agricola, helped to pacify and civilise the province of Britain.⁴

The criteria which defined a city in the eyes of the Greeks and Romans differed. To the Greeks the polis needed no definition. The city was essentially a community of citizens, sharing common political, religious and social traditions. Alcaeus stated that it was not well-roofed houses, well-built walls, docks and harbours, which constituted a city, but men able to use their own opportunity.⁵ Both Herodotus and Thucydides express similar sentiments. When, after the sack of Athens, the Greek commanders met to decide where to oppose the Persian fleet, Themistocles argued vehemently that they should fight at Salamis and not at the Isthmus of Corinth. During the debate the Corinthian general, Adeimantos, tauntingly replied that a man without a city had no right to vote, and even suggested that Themistocles should not participate in the discussions until he had regained his city. In reply Themistocles said that the Athenians had a far greater city than the Corinthians in two hundred fully manned warships.⁶ Over sixty years later, in a speech delivered to the defeated remnants of the Syracusan expedition, the Athenian general Nicias maintained that men made a city, not walls or ships without men inside them.⁷

To the Greeks of the Archaic and Classical periods the city was a community, and its physical attributes – well-built houses, walls, docks, other buildings and to a certain extent even its locality – were secondary in importance. It was the concept of the city as a community which made the abandonment of Athens at the time of the Persian Wars, however reluctantly, acceptable, especially when the Athenians realised that their protecting deity, in the guise of a snake, had already left the Acropolis.⁸ Presumably it also convinced Eurybiades, the overall commander of the Greek forces, of the reality of Themistocles’ threat that the Athenians would abandon the Greek cause and settle at Siris in Italy, if he refused to engage the Persians at Salamis.⁹

Although to the Greeks the polis was essentially the people, the words of Alcaeus, Adeimantos and Nicias also acknowledge that the city had a physical aspect. As cities grew, especially under the patronage of the Hellenistic kings and their Roman successors, fine public buildings, sumptuous houses and impressive civic amenities became the hallmark of urban life. Pausanias’ comments on the small city of Panopeus in Phocis, whilst recalling Classical sentiments, reflect second-century Roman attitudes. How, he asks, can Panopeus be considered a city when it has no state buildings, no theatre and no market square, when it has no running water at a water head, and the people live on the edge of a torrent in hovels like mountain huts.¹⁰ Pausanias’ words reveal the contrast between the old Greek concept of the polis as a community and the importance attached by the Romans to providing for the material well-being of the citizens. Indeed Pausanias’ comments on Panopeus offer a veritable check-list of what constituted a successful city in the eyes of the second-century inhabitants of the empire. The fact that Pausanias felt that it was appropriate to comment upon the failings of a relatively small, insignificant city in Phocis indicates the significance to the Romans of the physical amenities of urban life. It was such impressive public buildings and other urban amenities, which, in The Golden Ass, the noble woman, Byrrhaena, praised in her own town of Hypata in Thessaly.¹¹ Aelius Aristides expressed similar sentiments when he praised the achievements of the Romans in fostering urban life throughout the empire.¹²

Within the Graeco-Roman world the city fulfilled various functions, and these functions affected its physical and architectural development. Until the reality of the pax Romana, the need for defence remained paramount. Cities were located with a view to the natural defensive qualities of the site. The acropolis with its Roman equivalent, the arx, remained both the symbol of a city’s independence and the last place of refuge for its inhabitants even after the advent of city walls.

The political, economic, social and religious functions of the city¹³ are reflected in its public buildings and their location within the urban environment. The political and administrative role of the city is witnessed most of all in the agora and forum. They were the heart of the Greek and Roman city respectively, linked to the rest of the town by the network of streets. Like the acropolis, the agora and forum were an indication of a city’s political and administrative independence, and remained so even at the height of the Roman Empire. The agora/forum also doubled as the town’s social centre. Entertainment, competitions and other leisure activities were put on within their precincts until more specialised buildings were developed.

The importance of economic activity in the ancient city is often understated. Cities had an important economic role both locally and in some cases on a much wider scale. Ultimately the physical development of the city was conditioned by its resources. Within the city itself economic foci were positioned in relation to harbours, gates, the agora or forum, and other areas where crowds were to be found. As time went on large, purpose-built commercial buildings were developed.

A city was also a religious community. Temples, shrines and other sacred places were an integral part of the urban framework. Some places within the city were naturally sacred and attracted cult practice. The agora/forum was one place which attracted temples; the acropolis/arx was another. The siting of temples on the acropolis and other high points emphasises the protective nature of a city’s gods.

The orderly arrangement of the elements which made up the ancient city was the task of the town planner. But despite the extensive evidence of cities and urban buildings, knowledge of ancient town planning theory remains limited. It is not until the fifth century BC that history first records the name of a town planner. He was Hippodamos of Miletos, erroneously credited with the invention of town planning. The names of a few other planners and the cities on which they worked are subsequently recorded.

Written evidence regarding planning is not totally deficient. Concerned with the nature of the ideal city, philosophers speculated about the form that such a city should take. Thus the treatises of Plato and Aristotle are helpful. Often sociological factors were combined with planning concepts. Plato advised that temples should be located around the agora and in a circle around the city to act as a protective ring in order to maintain the purity of the city and its centre.¹⁴ The houses of public officials and the law courts, because they too were sacred, were also to be located in close association with the temples.

On the question of defence Plato argues against the construction of city walls both for reasons of health and on moral grounds, in that the citizens might place too much trust in them. One is reminded of Sparta’s boast that her men were her walls. If, however, the citizens want urban defences, he recommends that the city should be so arranged that it presents a unified appearance. He advises that the houses themselves should be so built that they act as the city wall. They should be regularly constructed and they should all face the street. His reason for such an arrangement is that it would not only offer protection but also the overall effect would be aesthetically pleasing.¹⁵ Plato concludes his discussion of his ideal city by defining some of the duties of the astynomoi with regard to the encroachment by individuals on public property and the general cleanliness of the city.¹⁶

Aristotle’s account of his ideal city is more comprehensive than Plato’s.¹⁷ His discussion includes advice on the choice of site and the best orientation for the city both for reasons of health and for the political and military well-being of the inhabitants. Availability of water was one of the essential factors which he felt should influence choice of site.

Regarding the town plan Aristotle admired what he called the new ‘Hippodamian’ method, but felt that the old haphazard arrangement was better for defence. He himself preferred a combination of the two systems; an arrangement which offered both security and was aesthetically pleasing. On the question of defence he disagreed with Plato over the construction of city walls, considering them to be advantageous both in war and peace. He ends by discussing the locations of individual types of building within the town and the types of agora which a town should possess.

Plato and Aristotle were concerned with the theoretical, sociological and moral concepts of establishing an ideal state. Nevertheless, their comments illustrate some of the considerations which governed the work of the town planner. They include the overall layout, the siting and orientation of buildings, defence, the health of the citizens, and the aesthetic qualities of the arrangement of the town and its buildings.

From the Hellenistic and Roman periods there is available a large body of technical literature relating to various aspects of towns and town planning. The manuals of the Roman land surveyors are helpful. Vitruvius wrote a treatise on architecture and related subjects. Frontinus wrote a comprehensive account of the water supply of Rome in the reign of Domitian. Practising doctors also commented on aspects of town planning which they felt would be advantageous to the well-being of their patients. Thus, for example, Hippocrates advised on the best alignment of the streets to ensure the health of the inhabitants.¹⁸

In addition to the professional and technical literature which is available, there are descriptions of cities and their monuments from travellers and geographers. Sometimes the accounts are first hand; sometimes they are collated from other sources and consequently their accuracy is questionable. The selectivity of the author in the choice of the monuments which he describes is another difficulty. The laws and statutes passed by individual cities also reveal some of the practical problems of urban life with which city authorities had to contend.

The relevance and importance of this information for the study of urbanisation and town planning is variable, dependent upon the interests of the writer and the chance survival of the material. Indeed, at times accounts can even be confusing, as the logical outcome of Vitruvius’ advice on the siting and orientation of cities reveals.¹⁹ Yet throughout, the documentary evidence again emphasises the importance of practical considerations in the planning and building of a city. They include the exploitation of the natural advantages of the site for protection and for an assured supply of water.²⁰ Practical considerations governed orientation²¹ and the location of individual buildings within the townscape.²² Vitruvius’ account of the religious practices connected with the foundation of a new city, and in particular the inspection of the entrails of the sacrificial victims from the site, has the practical importance of deciding the healthiness of the chosen location.²³ Aristophanes’ portrayal of Meton as a town planner is an indication of the importance and application of geometry in the laying out of a town.²⁴ The evidence indicates that Graeco-Roman planning was rooted in practical experience.

Despite its variable quality, documentary evidence remains an important source of information regarding cities and aspects of urban life. The other major source of evidence is the physical remains of the cities themselves. Whereas the written evidence offers descriptions and comment, excavation and aerial photography reveal the actual towns and individual buildings. Although there are dangers and deficiencies in studying the material remains, they offer evidence concerning the cities and the urban environment which is often lacking in the written accounts. Archaeology and aerial photography illustrate the plans of the cities and the relationships between buildings and different areas. They allow the study of the architecture of the cities and the amenities which were provided, and permit the reconstruction of the buildings.

When considering town planning it is usual to think in terms of the ‘Hippodamian’ gridded cities which were a widespread feature of the Graeco-Roman world. However, town planning involves more. The overall aim of the town planner should be to improve and ameliorate the conditions of urban life by providing for the material well-being of the inhabitants and by creating an aesthetic and visually pleasing urban environment.

Indeed, although widely used, regular town planning was not without its critics. For various reasons the ‘old’ towns without formal arrangement were preferred. Certainly regular planning had disadvantages. Grid planning remained essentially functional and consequently there was the ever-present danger of monotony and repetition. It was a simple and straightforward means of laying out a new town; but sometimes its application was totally unsuitable to the conditi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Urban Development and the ‘Old’ Cities of Greece
• 3 The Origins and Development of Greek Planning in the Mediterranean
• 4 Planning in the Classical Period
• 5 Town Planning in the Hellenistic World
• 6 Etruscan and Roman Planning in Italy
• 7 Planning in the Roman Empire
• 8 The Ancient City and the Urban Infrastructure
• 9 Epilogue
• Appendix: Town planning and the law
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Map of sites
• Index