Roman Roads: what were they used for?

I was researching for an article about the Parthenon and got distracted by the images of some of the Ancient Roman roads. I do not believe these roads are anywhere close to being some 2,000 years old, but this is not the point of this tiny article. I'm not sure we fully understand what type of traffic those roads were built for. Here is what the narrative tells us about these roads:

• Roman roads provided efficient means for the overland movement of armies, officials, civilians, inland carriage of official communications, and trade goods.
• Roman roads were of several kinds, ranging from small local roads to broad, long-distance highways built to connect cities, major towns and military bases.
• Major roads were often stone-paved and metaled, cambered for drainage, and were flanked by footpaths, bridleways and drainage ditches.
• Roads were laid along accurately surveyed courses, and some were cut through hills, or conducted over rivers and ravines on bridgework.
• Road sections could be supported over marshy ground on rafted or piled foundations.

At the peak of Rome's development, no fewer than 29 great military highways radiated from the capital, and the late Empire's 113 provinces were interconnected by 372 great roads. The whole comprised more than 400,000 kilometres (250,000 miles) of roads, of which over 80,500 kilometres (50,000 mi) were stone-paved. In Gaul alone, no less than 21,000 kilometres (13,000 mi) of roadways are said to have been improved, and in Britain at least 4,000 kilometres (2,500 mi). The courses (and sometimes the surfaces) of many Roman roads survived for millennia; some are overlaid by modern roads.

Ancient Rome boasted impressive technological feats, using many advances that would be lost in the Middle Ages. These accomplishments would not be rivaled until the Modern Age. Many practical Roman innovations were adopted from earlier designs. Some of the common, earlier designs incorporated arches.

• Roman road builders aimed at a regulation width, but actual widths have been measured at between 3.6 feet (1.1 metres) and more than 23 feet (7.0 metres). Today, the concrete has worn from the spaces around the stones, giving the impression of a very bumpy road, but the original practice was to produce a surface that was no doubt much closer to being flat. Many roads were built to resist rain, freezing and flooding. They were constructed to need as little repair as possible. ​

Roman construction took a directional straightness. Many long sections are ruler-straight, but it should not be thought that all of them were. Some links in the network were as long as 55 miles (89 km). Gradients of 10%–12% are known in ordinary terrain, 15%–20% in mountainous country. The Roman emphasis on constructing straight roads often resulted in steep slopes relatively impractical for most commercial traffic; over the years the Romans themselves realized this and built longer, but more manageable, alternatives to existing roads. Roman roads generally went straight up and down hills, rather than in a serpentine pattern.

Romans preferred to engineer solutions to obstacles rather than circumvent them. Outcroppings of stone, ravines, or hilly or mountainous terrain called for cuttings and tunnels. An example of this is found on the Roman road from Căzănești near the Iron Gates. This road was half carved into the rock, about 5 ft to 5 ft 9 in (1.5 to 1.75 m), the rest of the road, above the Danube, was made from wooden structure, projecting out of the cliff. The road functioned as a towpath, making the Danube navigable.
A somewhat detailed construction information can be seen here.

Outside the cities, Romans were avid riders and rode on or drove quite a number of vehicle types, some of which are mentioned here. Carts driven by oxen were used. Horse-drawn carts could travel up to 40 to 50 kilometres (25 to 31 mi) per day, pedestrians 20 to 25 kilometres (12 to 16 mi). For purposes of description, Roman vehicles can be divided into the car, the coach, and the cart.

• Those of us who drove on cobblestoned streets know what a pleasant experience it can be.

Cars were used to transport one or two individuals, coaches were used to transport parties, and carts to transport cargo.

• Ancient Roman Transportation ​

I guess chariots were cars, and carriages were coaches. Here is the general appearance of those.


This is the part that makes me question the narrative. There were two sentences above, which I found interesting and here they are:

• 1. Today, the concrete has worn from the spaces around the stones, giving the impression of a very bumpy road, but the original practice was to produce a surface that was no doubt much closer to being flat.​
• 2. Roman roads generally went straight up and down hills, rather than in a serpentine pattern.​

It is clear, that even the traditional historians recognize the associated difficulties and discomfort of any travel on some of the Roman roads. I agree, there are some better looking roads out there.


But some roads look like the ones below.

And this is where the following sentence comes in:

• Today, the concrete has worn from the spaces around the stones, giving the impression of a very bumpy road, but the original practice was to produce a surface that was no doubt much closer to being flat.

In other words, it is being insinuated that these roads were paved with concrete. Somehow this part "the original practice was to produce a surface that was no doubt much closer to being flat." I also see nosign of any "worn concrete" in the images.

It is so easy to say stuff like this, "Roman roads generally went straight up and down hills, rather than in a serpentine pattern." Isn't it amazing how easy it is to say stuff, when you are not being held accountable? For the dudes who were cutting through hills, and making tunnels in the mountains building a serpentine road was not a solution, so they simply chose to build uphill and downhill roads.


Here is what HistoryExtra has to say on this:

• Roman roads went straight up the most precipitous of slopes without winding back and forth in hairpin bends like modern roads. ​
• This is because a marching man on foot can go straight up a steep hill and then rest to recover before moving on much quicker than if he wound around a gently rising slope.​
• Army supplies were carried on mules who could likewise go up a steep slope without much trouble.​
• Draught animals pulling wagons needed the gentler slope, but the via munita were not built for merchants who used wagons. ​

I ran into this leg-breaking image, and decided to look up what those stones in the middle of the roadway were. The narrative said those were installed for the convenience of pedestrians.

• The streets of Pompeii were paved during Roman times with large polygonal blocks of stone. The stepping stones kept Romans' feet dry and out of the rainwater, slops, and animal waste that would have filled the streets of Pompeii. ​
• Source​

Needless to say, that presence of these "stepping stones" would render any horse traffic highly dangerous, and in many cases impossible. IMHO, these stepping stones defeat the purpose of having a road. Check these images out.

A rut is a depression or groove worn into a road or path by the travel of wheels or skis. Ruts can be formed by wear, as from studded snow tires common in cold climate areas, or they can form through the deformation of the asphalt concrete pavement or subbase material. The main reason is heavy loaded truck acts more pressure than assumed during the construction of roads. These heavy loaded trucks will imprint the tire impression on roads causing ruts.


As far as I understand, the narrative claims two different types of Roman road ruts. Ones of those makes no sense, for these ruts are signs of wear and tear,and not something constructed by design. The designed ones should probably be called grooves.

• Mountain roads might also have ridges running across the surface to give people and animals better traction and have ruts cut into the stone to guide wheeled vehicles. ​
  • Roman Roads​
• Archaeologists found that over time, the passage of carts eroded those stones to form deep holes, or ruts. Ruts can tell us much about traffic, including something of its intensity and the sizes of ancient vehicles.​
  • Ancient Romans Used Molten Iron to Repair Streets Before Vesuvius Erupted​

I do not know what kind of stone was being used, but how heavy were those carriages? These look made to me, and not worn by traffic. I could be wrong of course, but this is my opinion. Additionally, I have hard time understanding how any mounted traffic was even possible on some of these roads.

• Oh, and I think these ruts rule out any "worn" concrete pavement.​

KD: Anyways, I just wanted to share my observations. Would appreciate your input on how these roads were supposed to function.