hich should have been proudly noted by Roman historians, politicians, and
so on. It's a little like if American history books skipped the fact that
America went to the Moon. Meanwhile, local legends ascribe the stones to the
time of Genesis. The big blocks were part of a fortress built there by
So, did Romans move the Trilithon blocks? Absolutely not! Romans had no
desire to move such weights, because they knew just as well as we do that
they could not move even substantially smaller blocks. History supports our
notion with solid evidence from the same time period.
When Augustus, emperor of Rome had conquered the region in 27 BC, he ordered
that the massive obelisk towering above others at the Karnak temple in Egypt
be brought to Rome, but the effort was aborted, when the trophy proved too
heavy. Sources give varying estimates of its weight, from 323 tons to 455
The discrepancy must stem from the fact that the original obelisk was 36
meters long, and had weighed 455 tons. Now that it is 4 meters shorter at
the base, it must be correspondingly lighter, and because obelisks are
always considerably thicker at the base than higher up, the loss of a
hundred tons would be realistic. So, the discrepancy is self-explanatory.
It seems to suggest a reason to why some 300 years later, Emperor
Constantine I (reigned A.D. 306-337) had succeeded where Augustus had
failed, namely, in taking the obelisk out of Egypt. But, in the process, the
pedestal and a large part of its base were destroyed. Well, since we are
talking about the otherwise indestructible Aswan granite, we have to deem
the obliteration of the thickest, strongest part of the obelisk deliberate.
Unable as they were to move the whole obelisk, the Romans had taken only as
much as they could carry. After all, Constantine's workers had similar
troubles with the obelisk of Tuthmoses III now standing in
Istanbul. Here is
a quote I found at Andrew Finkel's site:
"The decision to import the structure was taken by
Constantine himself. Rome
had at a dozen obelisks. His city, Constantinople or the "New Rome" had to
have at least one. The Byzantines succeeded in fetching the monument from
Deir el Bahri near Thebes, although in a sawn-off form. The original shaft
was probably a great deal longer. Yet having brought it to the harbor on
the Sea of Marmara side of the city, no one could figure out for an entire
century how to get it up the hill"
At the same time the big 323 ton Lateran obelisk from
Karnak was still in
Alexandria, remaining there until after Constantine's death. His son,
Constantius II [reigned A.D. 337-340] had then taken it to Rome instead.
However, it did not get to Rome's Circus Maximus until A.D. 357, seventeen
years after the death of Constantius II. Finishing the centuries old project
took almost fifty years...
Knowing all these facts then bears heavily on our judgment of what the
Roman could, or could not do at Baalbek.
a) Roman engineers had failed to even budge the 455 ton
at Karnak for emperor Augustus.
b) But, allegedly, the same Roman engineers had successfully transported the
three Trilithon blocks weighing twice as much, plus, twenty-four more blocks
weighing pretty well as much, i.e., 300 - 400 tons, all of which we see in
the enclosure wall of the Baalbek temple terrace.
Moreover, the transport of the
Trilithon blocks would have had been
incredibly rapid, because the retaining walls should be in place prior to
the construction of the temple itself, as logic would seem to dictate
Unable to move the 455 ton Karnak obelisk, Augustus took two other obelisks
from the Sun Temple in Heliopolis, instead. It was the first transport of
obelisks to Rome. The obelisks are now in the Piazza del Popolo (235 tons),
and the Piazza di Montecitorio (230 tons). Funny, 235 + 230 = 465. So,
Augustus got his 455 tons, plus change, but it was in two parts. These are
solid indications of the then Roman capacity in moving heavy objects.
Why did Romans pick the remote
Baalbek? Did they do it for practical
reasons, utilizing older structures, and perhaps plentiful building
material