The Servian walls of Rome

[General Brittanicus]

I've recently been looking at the defences of the city of ancient Rome and i have a question regarding the Servian walls. On several maps such as this one it shows the walls starting at the river and then finishing at a different spot on the river. In the maps it looks as if there is just a big gap in the walls along the river, so my question is - is that how the wall was built? Did they just not bother building a wall on that section, because of the river? If that is the case - doesn't that weaken the rest of the perimeter since the river might change its course or the water level might fall or some such thing and then you'd have a big gap in your defences there.

[G-Megas-Doux]

The romans were used to diverting water, having made aquaducts, sewers and draining lakes. They would have made sure that part could not move much. Also they would likely have defended the part that ends at the river with as much vigor as the gates of Rome. Also there is something to point that if you are traveling up or down river to get inside the city on the shore you risk arrow attacks both regular and fire arrows. So row boats or sail river boats would risk burning and blocking the way for the followers. They would have had their defences or at least plans for dealing with it. Also you can always run chains across the river to block the route.

[Tiberios]

As G-Megas-Doux said, the walls were quite likely heavily defended at those points. Perhaps even with towers. I could imagine that these points could also be blocked with chains being run between towers or simply by Roman ships anchored there.

[General Brittanicus]

As G-Megas-Doux said, the walls were quite likely heavily defended at those points. Perhaps even with towers. I could imagine that these points could also be blocked with chains being run between towers or simply by Roman ships anchored there.

The romans were used to diverting water, having made aquaducts, sewers and draining lakes. They would have made sure that part could not move much. Also they would likely have defended the part that ends at the river with as much vigor as the gates of Rome. Also there is something to point that if you are traveling up or down river to get inside the city on the shore you risk arrow attacks both regular and fire arrows. So row boats or sail river boats would risk burning and blocking the way for the followers. They would have had their defences or at least plans for dealing with it. Also you can always run chains across the river to block the route.

Hmm, ok then. I suppose it makes sense that they would have had some kind of defensive measures there since i've never heard of anyone using that area to force their way into the city. Thanks for the replies guys .

[Tiberios]

But it certainly does look a bit weird on the map. Eventhough they did have either chains or ships to block the river, it still seems a bit hazardous to leave such a large strech of the river bank completely open and unprotected. Besides, the Fourth Crusade is a good example of how a chain run between towers can be overcome. Then again, the map isn't exactly that detailed so there could have been several large defensive structures at the river sections of the wall. It would certainly be interesting if more detailed map could be found.

I found this in the Dutch article on the Servian Walls and it seems the Northern end had a bridge just inside the walls
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ische_Muur.png

And this on the Spanish:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...jpg?uselang=es

In both these there is a bridge inside the wall at the Northern point. I'd say that this could have been used to block any attack by ships. The map on the Spanish Article also indicate that attackers along the bank would have to pass a section of the wall with what appears to be towars at the end, in order to get into the city. With enough troops defending the walls, that would be quite hard. I also imagine that the river bank itself would be impassable anyway.

[General Brittanicus]

Thanks for those maps. They do seem to suggest there were better defenses there than the map i originally posted. I've looked at the video below from those people who are making a 3d model of rome and at the start of the video when its over the river there don't seem to be any walls or anything, but they may not have included walls anywhere in the city, so it may not be that helpful.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I've recently been looking at the defences of the city of ancient Rome and i have a question regarding the Servian walls. On several maps such as this one it shows the walls starting at the river and then finishing at a different spot on the river. In the maps it looks as if there is just a big gap in the walls along the river, so my question is - is that how the wall was built? Did they just not bother building a wall on that section, because of the river? If that is the case - doesn't that weaken the rest of the perimeter since the river might change its course or the water level might fall or some such thing and then you'd have a big gap in your defences there.

No, simply because the city needed to have the ability to be supplied from the Tiber if it were under siege.

In 537-38 Belisarius successfully defended Rome from the Ostrogoths. He used the Tiber extensively to aid in resupply, even building waterwheels on it to to power the city's corn mills when the aquaducts were cut. While the Servian walls had been upgraded by Aurelian, they followed the same general path around the city.