Roman Urbanization Why Was Urbanization

Roman Urbanization Why was Urbanization an Important Element for the Construction of a Roman Identity? The challenges of nation and empire building have been a fascination of western civilization since before the industrial revolution, which marked a period of massive alterations in the development of urban centers for trade and commerce in such societies. Yet, it must also be made clear that the development of urban centers occurred in the model society, for much of Western development, i.e. Rome.

Roman identity was in fact, largely based on the functional and fundamental development that made urbanization in building a culture possible. It is in fact fair to say that the development of Roman identity was fundamentally dependant on urbanization, as the city state was the most essential authority on developed life and connecting large city states as well as creating architecture that would support dense populations spurned not only actual development but conquest.

Though Rome itself developed very gradually and was not the product of massive early planning standards the large colonial cities were much closer to the "ideal" of the organized urban center and it was the dream of many developer, public and private to repurpose large chunks of Rome itself, to build structures that were more planned and logical, rather than simply conforming to the space available.

Where planning became possible Zanker point out is was done well and followed to the letter, his examples include the Campus Martius, which was in fact a small city in and of itself, built on a grip, (see, p. 26) and the large public building erected by emperors both in and around Rome.

As cities began to become larger and buildings began to be able to support such populations the needs from the countryside and broader supporting regions became much greater, roads, communication and infrastructure building became essential aspects of Roman urban and rural life and more resources were required from every outpost of the empire.

This emphasis also resulted in greater development of outpost city states, some of which developed in a more organized fashion than the city of Rome itself, as they were erected in relatively short periods of time via detailed plans. Examples include; Ostia, Antium, Tarracina, Miniturnae and Pyrgi,. Al of the above examples began as Roman colonies, along Roman roads, in a relatively straight line, and then developed into urban centers as the needs of the mother city and others grew to meet dense populations and public infrastructure. (Zanker, 2000, pp.

26-27) Paul Zanker points out in his extensive chapter on urbanization the massive influence that urban development has on the identity of Rome, most specifically with state sponsored and private development of public spaces, i.e. For the use of all.

Zanker stresses that Roman urbanization (of the city itself) was not a rapid process and was in fact very slow and gradual, which marked the rather disorganized fashion that it developed (with regard to city planning) but that each subsequent ruler or developer used what he had to develop public spaces that met the needs of the massive Roman population.

Zanker also points out that though all development was not ideal, the ideal of Roman development existed as a part of the identity of the city state and the empire and that as colonies became more influential, needed and urbanized they marked what would be considered closer to the "ideal" developed urban center, as they were planned in accordance to the needs of the local and distant supported populations and were nor sprawling (as Rome was) from the beginning. (p.

26) the colonial development Zanker points out, listed above, all developed under three basic premises, one that the city itself lies on a large Roman road, often at a principle axis of the road, that the main road traveling through the city goes past a Capitolium, or the center of regional government (though not a fully developed Forum as this was only in Rome) and that the community gathering place resides right in front of this Capitolium. (pp.

27-28) According to Zanker this basic city planning premise was followed by most if not all later developed cities, even in the outposts where such building was possible. Public works frequently developed as a response to Roman conquest, as successful generals and other high ranking veterans received preferential "retirement" benefits often in the form of land and housing, and these core settlements, such as Aosta, a plan that can be found on Zanker's page 29, is demonstrative this trend.

Massive and long Roman road leading directly through the center of cities according to Zaker, forms the core of the identity of these outposts, as they then felt connected and a fundamental part of the whole of the empire, as it grew. (p.

29) In addition to Capitolium, road centralization and city planning new public buildings, often sanctuaries or temples and tomb monuments served to centralize the minds of the people with their substantial visual representation garnering immediate respect for the public entities who developed them and the city itself and an entity. (pp.

29-33) Even the most lowly individuals on the food chain, at least living in the city or even visiting it had an idea in mind of the planned web of building that connected everything and everyone to the center of the city and the empire. "This close linking, or rather intertwining, of sacred and political space is undoubtedly a specifically Roman concept, expressing an ideological notion of central importance." (p.

33) Post, the 4th BC the Roman city plan became the ideal of the development of Roman outposts and settlements and served as an ideal for the development of ideology. (pp. 40-41) Zankers, admittedly brief review of city planning, limits the idea of conflict between individual Roman citizens, all who came from Rome and were often honored for military conquests and the indigenous populations, in its discussion of Roman city building and identity. The work Roman Pompeii, does more to express this essential conflict.

(Laurence, 2007) Yet, it can also be said that the act of submitting indigenous populations to the Roman city plan and Roman ideas and laws, most often just before and after military conquest, also helped glue the society together as the indigenous populations eventually felt at least protected by if not a part of the centralized identity of the empire, through public building. (pp. 20-38) Pompeii in fact offers a significant example of Roman city building and planning, as it was fundamentally locked in time by the volcanic eruption of Vesuvius.

The planning of the public spaces represent a transformation of an outpost into a Roman city, and though there was still marked conflict over representation and ownership, between colonists and Roman citizens planning is still the mark of the city. (pp. 20-38) Additionally, even before the conquest of the outpost there were centralized and centrally planned public works that were the impetus of the magistrates of Rome.

In the late 3rd century the magistrates were responsible for or at least involved in nearly every aspect of public improvement, embellishments such as.