How did a city with a population of ~1 million manage their waste in 19AD?

how did a city with a population of ~1 million manage their waste in 19AD?

modern waste management and sewage treatment is sophisticated as fuck and is no laughing matter

Other urls found in this thread:

forumromanum.org/life/johnston_16.html
crystalinks.com/romeaqueducts.html
waterhistory.org/histories/rome/
theconversation.com/talking-heads-what-toilets-and-sewers-tell-us-about-ancient-roman-sanitation-50045
quatr.us/romans/science/sewage.htm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_in_ancient_Rome
youtu.be/8wbhDhnsqE0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Sewers n shiet

DESIGNATED

They had less waste compared to us. Mostly just their excrement.In ancient Rome, houses didn't have running water (just public fountains), so housholds used much less for cleaning and bathing. Also, most people lived outside the city walls, in suburbs where most could build outhouses for themselves and just throw the wastewater away or use it to water crops. For the rest, public toilets and the sewers could deal with people's poo poo and pee pee.

If we are talking about litter in general, people produced much less of that too. Today most of the garbage are disposable wrappers, containers, bags etc. They had zero of those in ancient times. If you went to buy groceries, you used your own basket or pottery. Most garbage was organic, they could just turn into compost, and again, outside the walls that was usually what happened.

Japan made fertilizer for rice

Rome had an extensive and well-designed sewer system. A population that size probably would not have been possible without it.

Got any documentaries that focus on this?

I'd read but I'm dumb (sorry).

This

Only barbarians needed to poop.

London surpassed Rome's population without a sewer system.

In Rome at least, most people didnt actually cook at home (theres no way every apartment building would have enough places to cook.

Most people went out to eat or picked up food. The waste from this is in a sense far concentrated and easier to deal with.

Some cities had running sewers or communal poop places.

What should worry you is how much people's breathe smelled and how bad their teeth were

Try to look up Alberto Angela's documentaries. He's italian, but a lot of his work got subbed or dubbed.

In Ancient China, while cities did not go way up to 1 million at the time, sewage was still an issue. For that, they had clay pipes buried in the cities.

For shit and piss however a different matter was at hand: public warehouses where you have to climb up a deck a story high and piss/poo down a hole that deposits your shit in a septic tank. The Tank is then carted off by an underclass of Han Chinese society and dumped into a DESIGNATED land where pits are dug and the shit/piss is deposited into it. The shitboys then wait for decomposition to start and sells the compost as fertilizer

Its basically the reason why Asians have squatting toilets.

This one here pictured is a private version of it. Which was considered a luxury. The rich would have a pagoda of sorts built to hide the septic tank from sight.

That would be a cool place to take a shit

well said

/thread

>go to take a shit
>fall from your designated shitting tower
>you die while shit is all over you

sounds p shitty desu senpai

>They had less waste compared to us.

Ancient Rome actually used about three times as much water per capita as the present day city of Rome.

>In ancient Rome, houses didn't have running water (just public fountains)

Actually, most private homes (but not individual apartments) would have their own water supply and sewer connection.

>Disagreeing with a guy who was clearly correct

see
neo-Veeky Forums, everyone

contrarianism for the sake of it over the most likely historical truth

Not him, but it's no secret that most domus and the more high class insulae (generally on the first floor only) tapped into the aqueducts (often illegally), it's something that Strabo mentions when describing the difference between roman and greek cities.
In fact, I'd say you're neo-Veeky Forums, letting yourself be deceived by the first well-worded post you see.

>because ALL citizens are high class domus-living insulae

It was a general question that necessitated a general response regarding a generalized population

next time, apply critical thinking

Huh?

>because ALL citizens are high class domus-living insulae

Said nobody. In fact I literally said it didn't apply to apartments. What is your problem?

You sure are on fire, buddy. I suggest you stop trying to feel insulted.

Actually Ancient Italy was on par with the Sahara, it almost never rained and they imported all their water from huge aqueducts connected to the Rhine

You're the one sperging out over being corrected.

>this thread because of your shitposting

>This somehow is a relevant refutation of the post in questions content

Sources, or else this is just circular reasoning.

Different user. Only commenting because we should stop making this about us, any breaches of etiquette can be neglected thanks to anonymosity.

Both were informative posts, there's no real point in going to personal remarks, you fags.

But it is?

Pissing and shitting weren't invented until the 3rd century. They did a Myth Busters about it.

>user says no running water in roman buildings
>Strabo says yes running water in most domus and many insulae
How is this not a valid refutation?

Its a nuanced refutation of a minute point. Clearly people did illegal things, hundreds of thousands of plebs didn't.

We're talking about the population, not if the technology was possible

The larger population did not have direct and easy access to such technology

Your damage-control is as blatant as your ignorance

>Sources

For what? Rome's sewers? Just use Wikipedia.

>Its a nuanced refutation of a minute point.

Seems pretty direct to me.

This seems right to me. While other comments may be correct that many of the private houses had running water, the original post accounts for that, but focuses on the situation of the majority living outside the walls.

"seemed"

You seem pretty handicapped to me.

>seems right to me

But it's not. It says houses didn't have running water, but most did. It says they used less water, but they used more.

>Most did

Source

This is the most informative and detailed post of the thread. Everything else is "sewers lmao" and debates about how many sewers existed.

From wiki:

>Strabo, a Greek author who lived from about 60 BC to AD 24, admired the ingenuity of the Romans in his Geographica, writing:

>The sewers, covered with a vault of tightly fitted stones, have room in some places for hay wagons to drive through them. And the quantity of water brought into the city by aqueducts is so great that rivers, as it were, flow through the city and the sewers; almost every house has water tanks, and service pipes, and plentiful streams of water...In short, the ancient Romans gave little thought to the beauty of Rome because they were occupied with other, greater and more necessary matters.

>Wiki

go home, high school teacher

the wiki is perfectly fine for general knowledge

Kill yourself.

You're a total fool if you think that ancient sources are accurate. The Chinese thought that the Roman Empire was ruled by an elected chief and everyone lived in beautiful houses in perfect prosperity.

The source is from someone who lived in Rome you idiot.

>You're a total fool if you think that ancient sources are accurate.
I'd rather trust Strabo than a random user on a tibetan cave painting forum.
How the fuck could such a tame subject cause so much butthurt?

I'm not the one using outdated sources from a wiki page to push a false narrative.

Wiki's fine if you actually check sources. You clearly didn't

At least they did post sources. The no running water side has posted nothing whatsoever to back up their claims yet.

Rome had a massive sewer system that is still in use today. It's called the Cloaca Maxima, which means "Greatest Sewer". Public toilets, yes, Rome had public toilets, and private toilets would drain into the branch sewers or into large cesspits, and then flow into the Cloaca. From there it would flow into the Tiber and then out to sea.
Some of these toilets actually were sort of flush toilets as Romans brought so much water in that many homes had piping that would could flush out the sewers so you didn't have just a huge pit that reeked. (If you have ever been around a pit latrine, you would know what a hellish nightmare of a stink it is. In the army, you would sometimes put your promask on to cover the stench.)
Often times the Romans would use used bathwater (we call it greywater these days) to flush these sewers. This was not a luxury for just the upper classes, only the poorest lacked access to the aqueducts and piping system, but because they had so many public baths, toilets, and storage tanks it wasn't an issue. It was actually against the law to dump your waste into the streets, and you could be responsible for damages to a person for hitting them with it. Compare this to London as late as the 19th Century where the streets could actually run with poop.
No, the Romans did not treat their water as they had no understanding of bacteria, but they also knew of "bad water" and how it associated with illnesses, which is why they flushed it away as best they could. And even if you were stationed at a fort on the frontier, you had toilets that would have running water to flush away the funk.
Oh, and they did have a goddess of the sewer

>people in ironically think plebs paid for lead pipes engineers to install water systems in their apartments

>People in ironically don't understand that Roman illegal water pipes didn't have enough pressure to go above the ground floor

>People in ironically believe that because rich people did something that all people did it

Phone autocorrect unironic

Who doesn't know about the Roman sewers?

>if I post more and more senseless sources over clearly obvious and logical reasoning because I value quantity over quality, I WIN!

reddit, you have to go back

>over quality
>implying your own unsupported word is quality
This is quantity over nothing.

That's a compelling argument coming from the quantity side

That is true, for your ability to reason remains to be nothing as you remain willfully ignorant, wanking over futile sources in embarrassment.

Roman aqueducts brought a total of 1000 liters per person per day into the city. In contrast, Italy today only uses 375 liters per person per day.

Most didn't have to since Roman houses included an impluvium where they could get all there water needs from. The impluvium essentially channels all the water off of the roofs and into its basin during rains. Impluvium's were often also tapped into natural wells. Since the water was standing it wasn't often drank from, but that's what the aqueduct was for.

Assuming they maintained the impluvium's sanitation they could also, sometimes, drink from it.

So water really wasn't an issue for most Roman citizens at all.

That thing looks fuckin' scary.

I know they had sewers but how did they actually work? Were there pumps? How were they maintained and who maintained them? How were they planned by and by who? Were there "civil engineers" dedicated to this shit their whole lives? Were there dedicated teams on stand by if shit hit the fan and cesspools started overflowing?

Simply saying they had sewers is like saying electricity comes from a powerplant.

You saying electricity doesn't come from a powerplant, son?

Don't cry about neo his when you just said some stupid shit

not an argument

Go home. A quick 10 minute Google search has found more sources on both water and sewage systems in ancient Rome than I can shake a stick at.

Water:

forumromanum.org/life/johnston_16.html

crystalinks.com/romeaqueducts.html

waterhistory.org/histories/rome/

Pic is an ancient Roman sewer plan more sources coming

yeah but where's the sauce on ALL roman plebs having top-tier sewage and water systems on their shitty pleb households?

didn't think so, kiddo

So to recap: you're wrong and your smugness makes you look like a moron, not an intellectual.

Sewage sources:

theconversation.com/talking-heads-what-toilets-and-sewers-tell-us-about-ancient-roman-sanitation-50045

quatr.us/romans/science/sewage.htm

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_in_ancient_Rome

Pic is an ancient Roman sewer that still operates.

If you read the sources you would clearly know that almost all citizens had access to these amenities and that the poorest had public houses where they could do their business or collect water.

Am I supposed to do all the intellectual work for you or are not capable of clicking a link?

>no walls
>high ground
That's some sick exibitionism.

>hah! I have proven that the Romans, in fact, DID have poublic sewage systems! Roman plebs using running water in their pleb houses like what we're discussing as mentioned by the earliest few posts? No clue. AM I NOT BRILLIANT THOUGH?

congratulations my man

yeah, public houses and shit. Reread Am I supposed to do all the critical thinking work for you or are you not capable of using your brain?

>Kiddo

You've been thoroughly spanked by everyone who's come up to bat, stop being a smug prick.

dumb frogposter

Cool post. You should've mentioned the toilet ghosts and shitsplosions.

And if you read you would realise that the aqueduct tapping was a non issue, since even the smallest homes could afford an impuvium which is essentially just a concrete hole in the ground.

How does the inside of your ass smell?

I used to dislike Pepe too, but he's become a part of the fabric of this website.

>How does the inside of your ass smell?

You tell me :^)

Pull your head out of it and I'll tell you :^)

I would but sadly I can't, for you are far too deep in it

That makes no sense whatsoever, just like your arguments, so I'll briefly translate your contribution to this thread through a YouTube link:

youtu.be/8wbhDhnsqE0

Now why would you give me a link of your own recording?

Nice bants kiddo, better luck next time

>Your head is up your ass!
>Haha, no, it is your head that is inside your ass, not mine!
>Pull your head out of your ass!
>I would pull my head out of my ass, but I cannot, for you are too deep in your ass for me to do so!
>REEEEEEEEEEE

Fucking top tier argument, guys.

Thanks, I hope you're actually coherent next time as well :^)

should be screencapped as "Veeky Forums in a nutshell" desu

People post arguments disproving your assertion that there was little to no water storage and access to sewers in ancient Rome
>H-ha its not true because they only posted one old source

I give you a massive list of recent sources proving exactly the same assertion that BTFO of you as well as listing the importance and cheapness of possessing an impluvium
>Y-you weren't c-coherent

Go back to school bub and take a course on the civil engineering of ancient Rome.

Did you just realise that chans have a juvenile sense of humour? Have some fun for once in your life.

You're a newfag

>that there was little to no water storage and access to sewers in ancient Rome

Never said that

>I give you a massive list of recent sources

that proves stuff everyone already knows

>Go back to school bub and take a course on the civil engineering of ancient Rome.

You're the one that needs to stay in school :^)

Gravity and water cohesion, the same way your toilet works.

Then what's your contribution at this point since the running water bit has been made irrelevant with the use of the impluvium?

At this point you're either trolling or just thick.

>At this point you're either trolling or just thick.

oh the irony

I am not letting you just bantz anymore.

What's your assertion at this point? Are you still hung up on your original comments regarding the need for running water? To get around this issue somebody made a comment about water storage to which you said their source was shitty, so I gave you up to date sources proving their point. Then you made the comment that running water was not available for most Roman homes, to which I got around by stating the fact that most homes had impluviums thus negating the need for running water.

Seriously, you're just being blockheaded now.

Some say the Aquaducts were actually Shitquaducts

Strabo lived on the Black Sea coast of Turkey, you idiot.

Strabo is wrong, and we have archaeological evidence to prove he was wrong.

By your evidence, because Martial says that people tossing piss filled chamberpots out of insula windows was a major concern in Rome, there was not much running water, because they wouldn't have needed to do it.

>almost all citizens had access to these amenities

BECAUSE THERE WERE PUBLIC TOILETS, PUBLIC BATHS AND MOTHERFUCKING PUBLIC FOUNTAINS.

POOR PEOPLE THAT MADE UP 95% OF THE POPULATION OF THE CITY OF ROME DID NOT HAVE THEIR OWN GOD DAMN FLUSHING TOILETS IN THEIR TINY 8 PEOPLE TO A ROOM INSULAE.

>95%
That's greatly exaggerated and now I have to ask you for sources.

You realise that if even 50.1% of Romans either had an impluvium or tapped into the aqueduct you're incorrect, right?

Your assertion becomes even more out of scope when you realise a large chunk of citizens lived in villas and shared access to an impluvium.

By the way, if you're going to use raw population numbers you have to be able to sort out what percentage are citizens and what percentage are foreign squatters.

>hah! I have proven that the Romans, in fact, DID have poublic sewage systems! Roman plebs using running water in their pleb houses like what we're discussing as mentioned by the earliest few posts? No clue. AM I NOT BRILLIANT THOUGH?

Even the poorest Romans had access to public latrines and drains for emptying chamber pots into.

>public toilets
>in their pleb houses

You're right but I don't think that's what he meant

>a large chunk of citizens lived in villas

Kek. There aren't even villas in cities. Villas are rural farm estates built by wealthy noblemen. I think you mean the domus, the large townhouses owned by the same noblemen in the cities. They are the equivalent of 5 million pound houses today.


Most of the city of Rome's free population were citizens for its entire history, even with the mass migration into the city from other areas. Most of Italy had been given citizenship by the 1st century B.C. If you seriously think that there is room for a million villas you're either completely delusional or posting bait.

>foreign squatters.

Foreign as in non-citizen? You do understand that citizenship does not necessarily equate to wealth right? Most of Rome's population were citizens from an early date and virtually all of them were urban poor who subsisted almost solely off of the grain dole provided to them by the state BECAUSE they were citizens with some meat thrown into their diets due to the benefaction of their patrons and during festivals.

More importantly, WHY do I have to sort out what percentage are citizens and which are "foreign squatters"? Neither of them generally had flushing toilets in their own tiny apartment rooms. That's why Rome was filled with small public lavatories.

>95%
>That's greatly exaggerated

If you've ever read a single authority on Roman social history like Pomeroy or the Roman economy like Finley you'd know that it is has been established for like two centuries in mainstream scholarship that the vast majority of people in antiquity and in history up until the 19th century were either subsistence farming peasants, urban proles or just straight up indigent beggars.

Public. Not in their own damn homes.