Metatron Somewhat Incorrect in Detail

10 "MODERN" Things The Romans Actually HAD
Metatron, 29 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcIYpYJeUyk

Not all of the detail, but some.

3:54 What is your - presumably textual - evidence that private persons could buy the transport services of the cursus publicus?

Wiki seems to indicate it helped the administration get in news and get out orders, not that it sold part of the transport capacity to private citizens.

It's Persian model, the angarium, had the angaroi in "exclusive service of the king" so presumably not carrying private messages.

However, the Holy Roman Empire, under Habsburgs, ennobled the real inventor of postal services, Thurn und Taxis.

4:13 Yeah, exactly, the way to get letters across was using, for instance, one of your own slaves as courrier.

Presumably, if the "slave owner" was St. Paul, he would free them first and then give the free man such a task, carrying the letter to the bishop, but generally, like in frequent correspondent Cicero, the correspondence was carried by slaves.

If Pliny the Younger (another frequent correspondent) used the cursus publicus, this would presumably be because his correspondent in Rome was the Emperor, not a private person. His letters were official reports, not private business.

14:12 Thanks for mentioning hygiene, part of which heated the water first ... aquaeduct water would not have been healthy to drink undiluted.

Big solid objects would not be falling down in it, but there was no protection against diluted bird shit dripping down into it.

When they were abandoned, this secured cities from conquest (Naples and Vienne (?) having been taken by the aquaeduct), but also relying on water from dug wells made water supply purer and healthier.

14:55 Ah, Torre de Hércule!

Been there!

A Coruña.

Made a poem on it too - in Latin.

Corona Galaeciae
EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/11/corona-galaeciae.html

16:22 I looked up Varro, De Re Rustica, and you seem to have given a fake or incomplete reference.

First there are three books. Within each book there are both chapters and paragraphs - what you cite is the length of a paragraph, so should have given three numerals.

I have been over 1.1 and it had no § 11, and I have also been over 1.12, all 4 §§.

I would say that you have faked the reference, since 1.12 does talk of healthy and unhealthy places to put buildings.

None of the paragraphs say what you say, though.