If I were a well-to-do ancient Roman, could I make money by investing in the construction of an aqueduct?

score:25

Accepted answer

According to A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic, and a citation of antiquities scholar Ph. Leveau in particular, Roman aqueducts were mostly publicly funded, and although some may have had private funding, it was not for-profit.

Aqueducts were very costly to construct. So why and how did the Romans do it? Under the Empire, aqueducts were usually built and financed by the emperor, often to serve one of the monster bath complexes, themselves a product of imperial beneficence. Under the Republic these criteria did not exist and the decision to build an aqueduct rested with the Senate, apparently spurred on either by the personal initiative of an individual senator or by the ready availability of abundant funding; maintenance was under the care of censors or aediles. As an authority on financing, Ph. Leveau, has put it:

Aqueducts, being public works serving the public, did not attract private investment, and private citizens, contributing to their construction, did not in principle look for any profit in return. It has therefore been pointed out, and rightly, that the utility of an aqueduct did not lie in the field of economics, for while it promoted the health (salubritas) and quality of life (amoenitas) in the city, it did nothing for its commercial development. (Leveau, 2001: 86)

If you were a well-to-do ancient Roman funding the construction of an aqueduct, it would probably be called philanthropy.

Upvote:4

There is additional sources, although I can't recall at the moment, about rich romans paying for their homes to be connected to the system so that they have running water in their homes. I believe aqueducts were generally public works (Defense and sanitation projects) local delivery to rich peoples homes could be a private endeavor as wealthy romans did pay a connection charge.

Upvote:8

Yes, but this was a rare exception rather than a rule. The Roman aqueduct-bridge of Pont d'Ael (which not only allowed water to cross, but also people) was funded privately by Caius Avillius Caimus. He charged a toll for everyone who wanted to cross the bridge (so admittedly the profit did not come from the aqueduct bit, at least as far as I know).

I visited the site some three year ago while it was in the middle of the reconstruction work and the archaeologist supervising the work was kind enough to show us around; she actually claimed that this was the only privately funded aqueduct known.

More post

Search Posts

Related post