Talk:Roman engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tone and style

I have to say that a brief glance at the article makes it appear that it is need of a wholesale rewrite; it has the tone of a school paper (e.g., the use of amazing more than once; and the final paragraph). Comments? --FeanorStar7 15:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah go for it be bold edit prune and have a good christmas!!!vcxlor 16:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is absolutely terrible and has at least one glaring flaw which makes me wonder why this page is even here. Beyond a wholesale rewrite, I say just get rid of this page because A) it adds nothing useful to any of the articles it discusses, B) has no information one cannot find on another Roman related page that has citations and C) as mentioned has at least one glaring flaw so why have a page with mistakes that adds nothing useful and has no sources? The error in question is the Circus Maximus being flooded for naval battles. I have never seen or heard about the Circus Maximus ever being flooded, at least on purpose for a naval battle, though this legitimately occurred at the Colosseum. Please please please, for the sake of the Roman civilization, delete this page entirely. Firebrand24 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction

For the layman (i.e. myself), it is confusing to understand where the Romans acquired concrete from. The article says the Egyptians invented concrete and the Romans improved upon that invention. The article also states that the Romans acquired concrete from Asia. Perhaps one sentence clarifying this whole thing could help further understanding.

[edit] Favor

I am doing a project on roman construction and engineering, if any of you know of any relable sites then please let me know. Thanks! Kinglou135 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)