1560042

Word Count: 2, 409

Explain the main principles of Roman town planning (2nd and 1st century BCE).

The second to first centuries BC was a period strong imperial growth for Rome. By the late first
century BC it is widely accepted that the population of the capital had reached approximately one
million people and the city itself was overpopulated.1 When considering the image of Rome’s
sprawling, overcrowded streets in the late first century, it is hard to believe that the Romans
considered the importance of town planning. However, as Rome’s frontiers expanded, colonisation
increased providing the impetus for developing a standard system of urban design.2 Owens remarks
that, ‘new towns and cities were founded for the purpose of military security, administrative
efficiency and economic exploitation, and of course to assist the process of Romanisation’.3
Therefore, the compulsion for a standardised planning system becomes clear. This essay will explore
the various principles of Roman town planning as they had evolved by this period.

By the second and first centuries BC, perhaps the most recognizable characteristic of a typically
Roman-planned town was the prevalence of orthogonal grid streets. The image of a neat, uniform
city plan with equally spaced streets intersecting at right angles is one which epitomises the classic
conception of Roman town planning. However, the roots of this format of street layout are not
Roman but foreign in origin. Through the conquest of the Italian peninsula, Rome came into contact
with Greek and Etruscan building influences. 4 Early methods of Greek colonial town planning were
refined over the seventh and sixth centuries BC, creating a standardised grid pattern. The colony of
Poseidonia on the Campanian coast (recolonised by Rome in 273 BC) 5 is an embodiment of the
Greek form of town planning in its polished form at the end of the sixth century BC (Fig.1).

The influence of Greek town planning styles can be seen in later Etruscan colonies, such as
Marzabotto (Fig.2) in northern Italy which exhibits elongated rectangular insulae (approximately
165m long and 40-60 m wide) in an orthogonal grid pattern similar to the style of the Greek town of
Poseidonia – when comparing figures 1 and 2 the similarity in styles is clear. The Etruscans, however,
displayed their own identity by expanding on the Greek model in some respects; the stress on two
dominant intersecting roads in the centre of the town is an example of this. Additionally, Owens
claims that the ‘comprehensive drainage system’ and ‘the water supply to the citadel’ was another

1
Yavetz 1958, 500.
2
Owens 1989, 8.
3
Owens 1989, 7.
4
Ward-Perkins 1970, 5. Romano 2013, 254. Owens 1989, 8-11.
5
Romano 2013, 254.

1
 1560042

‘important area of originality to Etruscan planning’.6 Consequently, exploring the architectural legacy
of these cultures is vital when considering the main principles of Roman town planning as their
influence in this regard is fundamental.7

The town of Pompeii, preserved by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, exemplifies the interaction
between Greek, Etruscan and Roman architectural identities. The original Oscan settlement was
small and sporadically planned. This was developed over the fifth century to create an orthogonal
grid pattern. Although the residential insulae of the new layout varied in size slightly, the overall
effect was uniform and logical. New public buildings were then gradually added as the town grew in
size (most of them during the period of Roman occupation) such as the theatre and odeon.8
Although the original town of Pompeii was founded long before the period of the second and first
centuries BC, it is important to consider such examples when considering the origins of Roman of
town planning principles.

The blueprint of the ‘Roman grid’ would start with two chief roadways which would be surveyed
first. The two primary streets were the cardo maximus (usually orientated east-west) and the
decumanus maximus (usually orientated north-south) which would intersect in the centre of the
town and form the principal road system. Augustus recommended that the decumanus maximus
have a width of 20 feet and the cardo maximus a width of 40 feet. From this, several smaller roads
would run, parallel to the main roads. Again, Augustus recommended the width of these subsidiary
roadways to be between 12 and 8 feet.9 Consequently, the insulae were normally of equal size.

The ‘centuriation’ of the land outside the town walls was also an important principle of Roman
planning, relating closely to the orthogonal layout of land within the town. The process of surveying
and dividing land was known as limitatio. Initially, land was divided into centuriae, equal to 100 units
of land. By the end of the first century BC, a centuria was considered to be 20 by 20 actus. Limites
were then used to divide the centuriated land as it was often important that some rural limites had
room for passing vehicles (surveyed lines with no width were called rigors). Moreover, the allotment
of land to individual settlers varied from 2 to 50 iugera, depending on a number of factors. The
smallest division was 2 iugera (heredium) and was heritable but typical allotments ranged from 5-12
iugera. Additionally, areas of land which were unsuitable for agricultural purposes were excluded
from the measurement of centuriation (for instance the swamp-land at Aurasio).10 All of this gives

6
Owens 1989, 9-11. Romano 2013, 254.
7
MacKenrick 1956, 127-128.
8
Owens 1989, 11-12.
9
Romano 2013, 255.
10
Romano 2013, 258-259.

2
 1560042

the impression of a town which has been planned wholly from the outset with an ordered and
regular consideration of urban space.

However, the view that these orthogonal patterns served a primarily organisational function has
been disputed by some scholars. William MacDonald believed that the main orthogonal streets,
rather than merely organising the area of the town, served the function of displaying principle
buildings of the town in question. The effect for someone passing through the city would be a
‘sequential viewing of public monuments’. This notion is discussed in The City in the Roman West in
which Laurence, Cleary and Sears remark: 11

The grid of streets was an easy way in which to provide a shape to the space within
the walls of a city, but it was not intended as a planning tool in the manner of the
layout of Manhattan in 1807 with a view to further expansion of the city over the
2,028 blocks of Manhattan Island.

The first century BC author and architect Vitruvius, writes in his de Architectura of the
importance of ‘the general plan of the walls of a city and its public buildings’12 but does not
explicitly mention the orthogonal grid street plan or the city more generally. This seems to
support the argument that Roman planners who designed orthogonal streets were more
concerned with the linear experience of moving through an urban space than the layout of
the urban space itself as an area or territory.

Falerii Novi, situated 50km north of Rome, features a typical orthogonal street layout and
exemplifies the idea of Roman linear spatial conception (Fig.3). Moreover, there is a strong
indication that those who planned the city wished to create a visual impact through the
utilization of prominent spaces along the city’s main linear routes .The walled town had four
gates which opened into the main east-west road (cardo maximus) and the main north-south
road (decumanus maximus). The Via Amerina ran south to north along the decumanus
maximus, right through the heart of the city. As a result of altering the landscape at the
southern gate, those entering from the south and travelling north along the Via Amerina
would be faced with a steep incline of up to 1 in 20, rising 13 m in height along the road
through the city. Thus the brow of the hill represents a ‘natural pause’ for a traveller through
the town. It is no coincidence that the forum, temples and basilica were in view from this
vantage point. Continuing north, a traveler would then encounter the capitolium at a street
intersection and then the town’s amphitheatre upon exiting the walled area of the city.

11
Laurence, Cleary and Sears 2011, 116.
12
Vitruvius de Architectura 1.3.1.

3
 1560042

The deliberate placement of monumental buildings along the primary routes in and out of a
city not only supports the principle of a Roman linear conception of space but also highlights
their desire to create pleasing visual aesthetics within a town plan. Indeed, Simon Keay and
Martin Millett (two prominent archaeological surveyors) believe that the two main roads,
the monumental architecture and the walls of the town were created first and the central
grid was only expanded to fit the walled enclosure later on.13 This idea strongly opposes
what we know about the earlier-used example of the town of Pompeii which, although non-
Roman in origin, had orthogonal streets long before it possessed a collection of monumental
buildings.

The orientation of towns also appears to have been an important principle of Roman town planning.
Many towns appear to have been orientated relative to the rising and setting of the sun. Both
Frontinus and Pliny claim surveyors could determine east from sunrise and west from sunset and,
from there, determine north and south. The reasons for orientating a town relative to the position of
the sun is unclear – Pseudo-Hyginus claims that a south aspect is necessary for centuriation
(centuriated land was usually orientated in keeping with the position of its respective colony).
However, towns could often be orientated on different bearings for a number of reasons. Romano
comments, ‘Certainly the orientation of some systems that are associated with a roman colony are
organized with respect to an existing roadway or to a physical feature of the environment: a
coastline, a mountain range, or a river valley’. 14 Regardless of these variations, Roman consideration
of town orientation is clear.

Another principle of Roman town planning which also exhibits its homogeneous nature (but not in
terms of any physical manifestation) is the consistent methodology of town foundation. During the
republic the decision of when and where a colony would be founded was the concern of the
Plebeian Assembly through the passing of the Lex coloniae law. A group of commissioners, usually
three, were then tasked with overseeing all aspects of foundation (for instance, defining the
boundaries of the colony, assigning the various insulae and appointing magistrates). Plutarch gives
us details of this when describes the founding of the colony of Junonia in 123 BC on the site of the
former city of Carthage. In this description he mentions the ‘boundary-marks’ who were laying the
boundaries of the city when they were ‘set upon by wolves’ as a negative portent from the gods.15 In
this way, the primary sources offer us a view of the administrative and political principles of Roman
town planning, a perspective which is unobtainable from archaeological evidence.

13
Laurence, Cleary and Sears 2011, 119-121.
14
Romano 2013, 257-259.
15
Romano 2013, 253. Plutarch The Life of Caius Gracchus 11.

4
 1560042

More evidence can be found for the consistent methodology of Roman town planning in an ancient
corpus known as the Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum (containing a collation of texts from the
fourth century BC to the first century AD). The text describes the training and responsibilities of the
agrimensores, a professional group attached to the Roman army whose role was to survey and
measure the various areas of a new city. The main tool used by the agrimensores was the groma, a
vertical staff with two horizontal bars and four weighted cords hanging down each side. The
agrimensore would use this tool in order to site straight lines and right angles with great accuracy.
The accuracy of roads, in terms of orientation and straightness, would be regularly checked on every
fifth road (quintarius).16 Thus, the role of the agrimensores exemplifies the standardised nature of
Roman town planning in the initial surveying phase by illustrating the Roman philosophy of creating
an urban space with a precise uniformity which is resonant of a Roman military camp.

There is also evidence of the use of scale models and scale plans in order to gain an appreciation of
the form of buildings before they had been constructed. Suetonius, writing about Caesar disguising
his intentions to march on Rome in 49 BC, remarks that he ‘concealed his purpose by appearing at a
public show inspecting the plans of a gladiatorial school which he intended building’.17 The Latin text
uses the word forma to describe the plans, which can be translated as ‘figure’, offering the idea that
Julius Caesar was examining a three-dimensional model and not simply a drawing. This gives us a
practical example of a three-dimensional model in use. Additionally, although the archaeological
evidence for such models is scarce, a marble model of a tetrastyle podium temple (approximately
40cm wide) from the first century BC was found at the Collegium of the Augustales in Ostia Antica (it
is it preserved only to the level of the column bases). This show us how Roman town planners
considered the three-dimensional form of an object and not simply schematic drawings and plans of
urban areas or individual buildings. Nevertheless, remaining examples are insufficient to assume the
use of such models was widespread. Furthermore, Senseney comments that, ‘carving from hard
stone does not lend itself to fluid explorations of spatial relationships, and the resulting model would
be too heavy to easily wield on site’. Thus, the rarity of models and the impracticalities they pose
make the consistent use of them in Roman planning unlikely.18

The period for which this essay is concerned (the second and first centuries BC) was a time of rapid
imperial expansion. This created the stimulus for devising a standardised planning system to
facilitate colonisation and to spread the ideologies of ‘Romanization’. This factor, combined with the
influence of Etruscan and Greek styles, helped shape the main principles of Roman town planning by

16
Romano 2013, 256-7.
17
Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar 31.
18
Senseney 2014, 141-143.

5
 1560042

the period studied. The principle features of Roman town planning are evident in the archaeological
remains most Roman towns throughout the Italian peninsula and the wider empire; literary sources
(for the most part) serve to support this evidence. However, although the evidence of architectural
features (such as orthogonal grids) is undisputed, there remains some debate on what such physical
evidence tell us about the principles of the Roman planners who designed them.

6
 1560042

Illustrations

Figure 1. Plan of Poseidonia/Paestum. Owens 1989: Fig. 1

Figure 2. Plan of Marzabotto. Owens 1989: Fig. 2

7
 1560042

Figure 3. A plan of Falerii Novi illustrating the intersection of the two primary N-S and E-W roads and the arrangement of
major monuments. Laurence, Cleary and Sears 2011: Figure 5.2

8
 1560042

Bibliography
Primary Sources
Plutarch. 2012. Parallel Lives: The Life of Caius Gracchus,
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caius_Gracchus*.html
(accessed 15th March 2016)

Suetonius. 2013. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars: Julius Caesar,

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html (accessed
15th March 2016)

Vitruvius. 2009. De Architectura: Book I,

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/1*.html (accessed 17th March 2016)

Secondary Sources
Laurence, R. and Cleary, S.E. and Sears, G. 2011. The City in the Roman West c. 250 BC – c. AD 250.
Cambridge.

MacKendrick, P. 1956. ‘Roman Town Planning’, Archaeology 9, 126-133.

Owens, E.J. 1989. ‘Roman Town Planning’, in J. Barry and C. Jones (eds.), Roman Public Buildings.
University of Exeter. 7-30.

Romano, D.G. 2013. ‘The Orientation of Towns and Centuriation’, in J.D. Evans (ed.), A Companion to
the Archaeology of the Roman Republic. Chichester. 253-267.

Senseney, J.R. 2014. ‘Plans, Measurement Systems, and Surveying: The Roman Technology of Pre-
Building’, in R.B. Ulrich and C.K. Quenemoen (eds.), A Companion to Roman Architecture. Chichester.
140-156.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1970. ‘From Republic to Empire: Reflections on the Early Provincial Architecture of
the Roman West’, The Journal of Roman Studies 60, 1-19.

Yavetz, Z. 1958. ‘The Living Conditions of the Urban Plebs in Republican Rome, Latomus 17.3, 500–
517.

Illustrations
Laurence, R. and Cleary, S.E. and Sears, G. 2011. The City in the Roman West c. 250 BC – c. AD 250.
Cambridge.

Owens, E.J. 1989. ‘Roman Town Planning’, in J. Barry and C. Jones (eds.), Roman Public Buildings.
University of Exeter. 7-30.