Who In The Roman Empire Engaged In Scientific Research?

In the mid-3rd century CE, Neoplatonist thinkers Plotinos of Egypt and Porphyry of Syria transformed scientific thought, religion, and philosophy. Martianus Capella, a Neoplatonist scholar, wrote on Rome as one of the nations of antiquity that contributed so much to the progress of science. Roman scientists included Pliny the Elder, Frontinus, Aulus Cornelius Celsus, Marcus Manilius, and Columella.

The Roman Empire was the most extensive political and social structure in western civilization. It was built upon the foundation laid by the Roman Republic and became the largest and most powerful political and military entity in the world up to its time. Augustus, Rome’s adopted son, established an autocratic form of government, where he was the sole ruler and made all important decisions.

Notable Roman scientists include Pliny the Elder, who studied the natural world, Frontinus, who engineered war machines and water systems, Aulus Cornelius Celsus, Marcus Manilius, and Columella, who studied agriculture. The Romans focused on some scientific fields very well and less well on others, mastered architecture and engineering.

The Roman Empire’s influence can be seen in the emphasis on the practical use of scientific discoveries and experiments. They studied ancient DNA from the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, which revealed Italian ancestry. In a new study, Stanford researchers and their European colleagues drew on ancient DNA to construct the first genetic history of Rome.

In summary, the Roman Empire was a significant contributor to scientific advancements, with notable scientists like Pliny the Elder, Frontinus, Celsus, Marcus Manilius, and Columella. The Roman Empire’s influence on science can be seen in its emphasis on practical application of discoveries and experiments.


📹 Roman Engineering: Crash Course History of Science #6

The Romans developed a lot of infrastructure like roads and aqueducts to both help their cities flourish and to… you know… be …


Who was a historian under the Roman Empire?

Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius wrote about Rome in the first century, so we know a lot about it. Tacitus was a political figure who saw the last years of Domitian’s rule. Tacitus was a political player and observed the last years of Domitian’s rule. Nerva made him consul of Rome in 98 AD, and he began writing history. History of the first century His first books were about his father-in-law, Agricola; oratory; and Germania, the Roman frontier on the Rhine. He then wrote about history. In “Historiae,” he wrote about the years from 69 to 96 AD, from Galba to Domitian.

Who in the roman empire engaged in scientific research quizlet
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Who did most of Rome’s scientific research?

Other scientists and doctors came from Greece because they could earn more money in Rome. They kept researching Greek ideas about disease and mental illness. The Romans let them keep researching and used many of their ideas. The Romans didn’t like dissecting corpses, so they didn’t learn much about human anatomy.

Greece’s spiritual beliefs about medicine were also common in Rome. By the 3rd century B.C.E., the Romans had adopted a healing system called the cult of Aesculapius, named after a Greek god of healing. They built shrines at first, but these grew to include spas and baths with doctors.

How did the Romans contribute to science?

The Romans were the first to make many scientific and technological advances, which still affect how the world works today. The Romans were great engineers. They knew about physics and built aqueducts and better ways to move water. They used water to power mines and mills. They also built a big road network. Their roads were paved with rocks. The Roman road system was so big that it was said that “all roads lead to Rome.” The Romans also developed tools and methods for use in agriculture. The Romans were good farmers because they knew about the weather, soil, and planting. They developed ways to plant crops and irrigate and drain fields. Modern farmers use techniques like crop rotation, pruning, grafting, seed selection, and manuring. The Romans used mills to process their grains, which improved efficiency and employed many people. Much of the world’s literature has been influenced by Roman literature. During the Golden Age of Roman Poetry, poets like Virgil, Horace, and Ovid wrote works that have lasted. Ovid’s Metamorphoses inspired Chaucer, Milton, Dante, and Shakespeare. Shakespeare was inspired by the ancient Romans, who inspired his plays Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra.

Who is the most famous Roman philosopher?

Some of the most famous philosophers in ancient Rome were Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Cicero. Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher and Roman emperor. He wrote about Stoic philosophy.

Who in the roman empire engaged in scientific research flashcards
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Did Romans have engineers?

Roman engineers built stone and concrete bridges and other infrastructure using early cranes and concrete that has lasted for 2,000 years. The Roman Empire was one of the greatest civilizations. The Roman Empire was one of the greatest civilizations. Its engineering achievements helped it expand. Roman engineers used concrete to build things. Many examples of Roman infrastructure can still be found, such as long-lasting roads that allowed the military to move and trade. Here are five of Rome’s greatest engineering feats. Some are still in use today.

1. Aqueducts. Roman engineers built aqueducts to bring water into cities and towns from the countryside. The water flowed from pipes, lines, and bridges into large holding areas. The water was used in public baths, fountains, and private homes. Some of these aqueducts still supply water to fountains in Rome.

How did roman architecture differ from greek architecture?
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Who were the scholars of the Roman Empire?

The most important historians are Caesar. Julius Caesar was born on July 12, 100 BC, into a wealthy family. … Livy. Titus Livius, known as Livy, was a Roman historian. He is best known for his work, Ab Urbe Condita, which is a history of Rome from its founding. … Sallust. C. Tacitus. Tacitus was born around … Suetonius. Roman history began at least in the 3rd century BC and was influenced by earlier Greek history. The Romans used Greek writers like Herodotus and Thucydides. Roman history is different from Greek history. It often focuses on Roman topics. Roman history was based on the Annals of the Pontifex Maximus. The Annales Maximi include lots of different information, like religious documents, names of consuls, deaths of priests, and disasters throughout history. The Annales Maximi also include the White Tablets, which tell about the Roman Republic.

During the Second Punic War with Carthage, Rome’s first known annalists, Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus, recorded history in Greek and relied on Greek historians like Timaeus. Roman histories were not written in Classical Latin until the 2nd century BC. Greek historians like Polybius wrote about Rome’s rise and its role as the dominant power in the Mediterranean in the 2nd century BC. Roman historians of the 1st century BC wrote in a more detailed way than annalists. Caesar’s De Bello Gallico focused on his wars in Gaul. Roman works often placed heavy emphasis on the origin myth of the founding of Rome as a starting point. These works were used by later Roman authors, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

History Foundation. Before the second Punic War, there was no history in Rome. The clash of civilizations was a big reason for the start of history in Rome. Two senators wrote the first history of Rome. They were Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus. They are the founders of Roman history. Pictor wrote a history of Rome in Greek. He wrote about the war in Greek because he wanted to speak to the Greeks and respond to another author, Timaeus, who also wrote about Rome until the Second Punic War. Timaeus was negative about Rome. Pictor wrote in Greek to defend the Roman state. He used Olympiad dating and a Hellenistic style. Pictor’s style of writing history defending the Roman state and its actions, and using propaganda, became a defining characteristic of Roman historiography. He is also known for the ab urbe condita tradition of historiography, which is writing history from the founding of the city.

Did Romans have scientists?

Ancient Romans called natural philosophers what we call scientists today. Pliny the Elder or Ptolemy. They mostly collected, organized, and combined the discoveries of the Hellenistic period.

What were the basic principles of roman law?
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Who contributed to ancient science?

The Greeks were the first mathematicians and scientists in the West. Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, and Empedocles tried to understand the world by studying it. Anaximander said the earth was a floating, unsupported body in space and made one of the first maps of the world. Empedocles was one of the first to believe that the world is made of different things that are attracted to or repelled by each other. The atomic theory of matter began with the Greeks. Euclid was one of the most influential mathematicians. His contemporary Archimedes was a famous inventor and is also credited with discovering a geometrical technique which anticipated calculus. The Greeks developed the idea of mathematized science through early astronomy. In medicine, they started with case studies and folk remedies and ended up understanding nerves, patching up wounded gladiators, and even removing cataracts with eye surgery. They invented the first steam engine, vending machine, and automatic doors. They built great cities with over a million people without using electricity, fossil fuels, gunpowder, or nuclear energy. The Renaissance was an attempt to bring the classical world back to life after the Middle Ages. The modern drive for progress has often been an effort to match or surpass the achievements of ancient Greece and Rome. Studying the history of science in the classical world helps us understand different fields of study in context and see how our scientific work fits into a larger picture.


📹 How Rome Became Byzantium: New Light from DNA, Ice Cores, and Harvard’s Science of the Human Past

About the lecture: Historians and archaeologists have long debated the processes that ended the ancient world and gave rise to …


Who In The Roman Empire Engaged In Scientific Research
(Image Source: Pixabay.com)

Christina Kohler

As an enthusiastic wedding planner, my goal is to furnish couples with indelible recollections of their momentous occasion. After more than ten years of experience in the field, I ensure that each wedding I coordinate is unique and characterized by my meticulous attention to detail, creativity, and a personal touch. I delight in materializing aspirations, guaranteeing that every occasion is as singular and enchanted as the love narrative it commemorates. Together, we can transform your wedding day into an unforgettable occasion that you will always remember fondly.

About me

25 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Nice article, but I think another major component of Roman science/knowledge of the natural world that you didn’t mention comes from Pliny the Elder, who wrote the Natural Histories, which explained weather phenomena, astronomy, plants and animals, and a whole wealth of other subjects. Also, we also have a description of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius from Pliny the Younger, which, while not inherently scientific, provided enough detail to have that type of eruption called a “Plinian eruption”

  • Good knowledge communicators perform a valuable service: Making complex subjects accessible to everyone. Hank and John Green stand with a long line of excellent knowledge communicators such as Malcolm Gladwell, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and many others. One of my favorites for his idiosyncratic perspective and breadth of subjects covered is Hendrik Willem Van Loon. You can feel his love of learning in his writing, even when he is inaccurate or just plain wrong. He is most famous for his Newbery Medal winner “The Story of Mankind,” but his other books are worth searching out and reading too.

  • I appreciate those comments that correct or clarify information from the article, but WOW! There are also some petty gripes! My hat is off to Hank and John and the entire staff at Complexly and Thought Café for providing so much excellent educational material. Crash Course is an example of the internet at its finest.

  • There’s a good article (edit: google ‘roman concrete salt water’ and there are many articles!) somewhere about Roman concrete! Paraphrasing, archaeologists couldn’t work out how Romans made concrete that lasted so long and so well in coastal constructions. The recipe said ‘water’ so they added water, and the sea would still tear it apart. However, turns out ‘water’ meant seawater to the Romans, they just never felt the need to specify since it was such common knowledge (think of how many times you’ve seen ‘egg’ rather than ‘chicken’s egg’ in a recipe). As a result of using seawater, the concrete could – to an extent – repair itself because of a reaction between the cement and the seawater.

  • Don’t neglect the medieval Romans (Byzantines), who brought us not only weapons like the first flame thrower and counterweight trebuchet, but also the first true hospitals, surgical advancements, engineering concepts like pendative construction techniques, and even the physical theory of impetus, which would influence later Muslim and Western thinkers in classical physics.

  • Ah, History of Science, how happy I was to see you in my queue today! I think the question asked in the beginning is one Newton would be familiar with. He understood that he was able to precisely describe the effects of gravity, but he and Leibniz recognized that he did not know what gravity was . Nor do we still. 1/3 were enslaved: less than are enslaved by contemporary capitalism. And at least they didn’t lie to their slaves about their status.

  • Good episode, but a few weak or at least slightly misleading parts. The ancient Greek techne could have used a little more attention or examples. It might be the root of “technology”, but it certainly isn’t anything technological. Alexander and Rome aren’t exactly supervillains. I mean, everything talked about in this article depended on them being conquerers. Same with the episode on India and the Americans. You just need to conquer and have large populations for scientific development. It’s a prerequisite. So you can call them villains as long as you also paint science and technology as tools of villainy (which isn’t a bad take to be honest), but you can’t paint one as bad and the other as good. Roman slaves. Well, Rome’s legal system was essentially founded on the distinction between a free person and a slave. One thing that’s important to remember is that, by the Roman definition, the vast majority of us in the developed world would be considered slaves. So it’s about as accurate to say that any public work today was built by a slave population as it is to say that about Rome. Same goes for highly educated slaves providing specialized services. That’s important to note when contrasting another culture with our capitalist one.

  • The claim that the Romans were disinterested in “theoretical” knowledge is blatantly false. I mean, we have a whole philosophical text written by a Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius. We also have De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, De Natura Animalium by Claudius Aelianus, and Naturalis Historia by Pliny the Elder. These Romans were clearly interested in abstract science and certainly pondered the “why” behind practical observation. Sure, these thinkers relied heavily upon Greek philosophy, but that is sort of how knowledge works.

  • Roman Engineering built on Greek Engineering produced the Appian Way crisscrossing Asia, Africa and Europe and is still existing today. This is just one of the many structures that represented Roman’s success in using practical knowledge and skills that grows out of the workers/masses themselves. Even if some of the Romans worked on the theoretical side of knowledge, the Roman contribution to the History of Science is grand on the practical (techne) side . Proof: Even if the Roman structures were left to neglect for a millennium, still the structure works.

  • The initial question really relates to the reaction to the supposedly impossible em drive which has been seen to generate thrust without any propellant and and is only powered by solar energy making microwaves. Since it apparently violates newtons third law but still seems to wotk we are in apostion were we could soon use the tech to bring us to mars in weeks without understanding how it fundamentally works

  • Archemeaies didn’t event the water screw, it was just the earliest example we had of it for a long time but we later found earlier references in Persian to a ‘palm trunk’, palm trunks look like water screws, which is how they think they kept the hanging gardens of Babylon watered (they were several stories tall)

  • The problem I had with my university’s History of Science course appeared in this episode. It doesn’t accomplish anything to apologize that certain groups (in this case women) aren’t a big part of the curriculum. We can’t change the past and I believe that the knowledge itself is more important than who discovers it.

  • If the Romans had possessed a competent numbering system, Western engineering (and possibly science) could possibly have advanced centuries ahead of where we are now. But, as it was, trying to do anything advanced depended, for example, on the ability to do such things as easily multiplying a number by CCCLV/CXIII (which happens to be a useful approximation of Pi). Which is why Roman engineering tends to be characterized as large and linear – while they had arches and domes, they were more a case of engineering by template rather than math and were typically sub-optimal in shape, achieving strength and longevity mainly by being massively overbuilt. Analysis of whether an elliptical, caternary or parabolic arch would be optimal for a given project had to wait – for about fifteen centuries and a better numbering system.

  • Great article but a few constructive criticisms: – It’s Frontinus, not Frontius – It’s Sardinia, not Sardina – I wish you had gone into actual detail about how the Romans understood key concepts, which, though proven incorrect in modern times, were good enough for them. For example, how they thought about water flow and pressure. It’s written about in good detail in Frontinus’ work on aqueducts.

  • I’m slightly confused as to why this course outline uses geography/civilization to subdivide it’s chapters. I mean, I guess I can work out the idea that at least in early advancement, improvements in science & technology took time to move outside of individual civilizations. But at the same time, no, they DIDN’T. Trade between civilizations has always been a thing. It feels like it would be much more organic to take a chronological approach to this series. Making exceptions only when knowledge was lost and then independently discovered (which happens, but is uncommon). Or, barring that, spend a little more introductory time explaining why the episodes are divided up the way they are.

  • I love Crash Course except one thing: the obsession of the Green Brothers against Alexander the Great (and John’s misguided disdain for his teacher, Aristotle). “Great” obviously doesn’t mean that Alexander was a great guy in every respect, it just means he was an effective leader (for which there is no debate) and that his legacy had a lasting effect on the world (and he specifically intended so, it is not just a historical accident). If we can’t call Alexander “the Great” I wonder what the standards to call someone “Great” are. Although I suspect that they are not so objective and this whole thing is just part of the hip political correctness mentality masked as humor.

  • I really like the aspect of science that they bring up in this episode, that it’s more political than anything else. Science is inherently neutral, not good, nor evil. It all depends on the people behind it. Now, knowing that humanity has historically been mostly an evil species, that uses things for selfish gains at the expense of others’ well-being, I really hope they have an episode dedicated to touching upon the crimes of science at some point in the future, in the spirit of fairness.

  • Yes, the Romans had slaves… but, relatively speaking, they had it pretty good. Keep in mind that these slaves were mostly captured enemies or rebels or pirates. Freeing slaves was a normal occurrence. I remember one memorial on the Appian Way left by a slave turned citizen who took his master’s name because, after some years of service, he was freed and granted citizenship. Yes, slavery was and is bad, but Roman slavery was pretty pragmatic compared to other types in history. It was basically a business deal with the payment of being a citizen of Rome at the end (if you got a half decent master).

  • “This is the first mention of a woman” -We don’t really know much about many of these ancient authors/scientists/mathematicians, and lots of things are just attributed to “a name”. If you wrote something a long time ago, that you wanted people to read, you would attribute it to “Aristotle” and people would read it and want your book. Who knows who really wrote or came up with a lot of this stuff. And some of them are just names, that people assumed were men.

  • Hmmm. You know, while I was perusal this article I was wondering why Hank Green was being so critical of the Roman Empire and conquerors in general. Then I read the comment section, and clicked for me, and when it did it made realize just what a clever cookie Hank is. Rome as been seen for generations as something to aspire to. Politicians up to the 20th century have tried to style themselves as building a “New Roman” empire, and people went along with it because the popular perception was that the Roman Empire and its conquests were inherently “good.” And if the Roman Empire was “good,” then you want to be like the Roman Empire as well. And to a certain degree this attitude of “Empire is good” still persists to this day, and there are many people who want to return to a strong, centralized, military government. This is as true of my country as it is of many others. In this light, the actual idea put forth in this article then is not that “the Roman empire was pure evil,” but rather “the Roman empire was not pure awesomeness.” The millions of people killed during the Roman conquests are often dismissed because “Well that’s just what everyone was doing back in the day” and the self fulfilling political instability brought on by Rome’s policy of rewarding land to veterans and thus requiring a constant cycle conquest that was ultimately doomed to fail given enough time is often glossed over entirely by Romaphiles. The Roman empire had its flaws, just like any other society, but these flaws have always been overlooked by people who revere Rome as, in their minds, the epitome of a “good” empire.

  • Science worries about “why” and falls down ever deeper rabit holes. Like gravity. After 5 or 10 whys you end at particle coliders and Higgs Boson and Probably?. Answering the next level of why is nobel prize nomination worthy. Interesting, but not dirrctly usefull day to day. Engineering worries about “how” only to the detail necessary to accomplish the goal and then you are done. How does a car work? Put car in forward gear and push gas pedal and car goes forward, good enough, done. Next?

  • The entire dichotomy between engineering and inquisitive science is nonsensical. Even granting that the two are appreciably distinct, they mutually require each other. How do you discover abstract properties of things? By doing stuff with them. How do you know what stuff to do with things? By having an understanding of their abstract properties. The overlap is so great, however, that I don’t think we can say that they’re appreciably distinct.

  • I’m starting to get very concerned at CrashCourse skimming over bits of history by calling them “supervillian rampages” without providing any evidence to back up that claim. This is the third time in the series. The fact that it’s mentioned in such a casual manner as if it’s the accepted norm is what irks me the most. This is practically historical revisionism.

  • PBS: Please fire the editor of this series and hire me instead. The intro music is too loud and Hank peaks and distorts multiple times, especially between the 6-7 minute marks. Worse, other episodes of Crash Course within the last several months have had similar issues. It is abundantly clear that your editor does not put on headphones and watch the whole article before clicking Export. A simple compressor/limiter filter would fix these problems, and that’s a pretty basic step for any Adobe editor. You’re better than this.

  • modern days buildings lasts 20 years i guess (without maintenance)…ancient buildings lasts millennia, i guess we should stop considering “architecture” as a major, it is absolutely useless major these days, ancient people put all our best architects into shame, imagine if the ancient engineers had access to our materials…we have absolutely no reason to act stupid