Nothing in this world is identical to anything else.  But one unique human characteristic is that we are capable of seeing patterns thus we impose structure and organization upon our chaotic world.  When asking whether or not Tolosa was a typical Roman city, it was necessary to use that ability to group and categorize, allowing us to discover the characteristic Roman city, if such a thing exists.  Tolosa may not have been a major city or a unique city, but based on what we chose to determine as a “typical Roman city”, it represented a regional example of this. 

     There were a few inconsistencies in Tolosa compared to the stereotyped Roman city that need to be mentioned: entertainment, walls, and worship.  While the entertainment in Tolosa may seem to be rather typical, many aspects proved impossible to be categorized.  This was because entertainment was donated, in a sense, to the city by various rich and powerful inhabitants.  Because of this, the entertainment of any given city was chosen by the benefactors of that city, and thus was not characteristic in any sense other than that there was entertainment.  Walls were also areas of inconsistencies when trying to spawn a stereotype.  First of all, Tolosa did not have the typical square perimeter layout for the walls, nor did it encompass all four sides of the city.  There was also a unique trait to Tolosa’s wall.  The fourth side to the city was arguably protected by the river.  Later, a wall, hastily created to defend the city against barbarians, was built with anything and everything that was found.  The base of the wall, and the filling inside, was made from just about anything made of stone, including rocks, statues, and sarcophagi.  Finally, Tolosa was not entirely typical in terms of its worship.  In fact, there was not any typical method for worshiping the gods, other than the main ones such as Jupiter.  Every city had the option and the ability to choose to which gods it would donate its temples and to whom the citizens would worship.  However, these few examples of some slight inconsistencies do not undermine the range of evidence proving Tolosa’s typicality. 

     It was Tolosa’s infrastructure, such as the roads, the sanitation, the forum, the importance of the city and the reasons for its creation that fit the guidelines that we believe were greatly considered before build a new Roman city.  Roads in Tolosa were no different in layout and structure than any other Roman city. Although the materials used sometimes contained variations, the style and architecture behind road designs was universal in the Roman Empire. This also caused sewers systems running under the roads to be similar throughout the empire. In many respects Tolosa’s roads were comparable to those of other great cities, such as Pompeii. 

     Sanitation in Tolosa was uniform throughout the Roman Empire.  Aqueducts and reservoirs were used across the reaches of the Empire, the reservoir was always at the highest point in the city, bathhouses were found in every city, and water was channeled to fountains in all neighborhoods. The Roman lifestyle was one of elegance and relatively high hygiene.  Sanitation was a common feature in roman cities because it reflected the roman way of life. 

     Thirdly, the city center and forum fit well into Roman city structure. In Tolosa, the forum was exactly where it should have been: at the crossroads of the two main streets. It was here that the market was loudest, where temples and monuments were erected, and basically where city officials could conduct the bureaucracy of the city. Although very much of Tolosa center has not been found, the bits collected points towards a “typical city-center.” 

     And lastly, we cannot forget Tolosa’s importance to the Empire.  Its importance falls into a well-defined category to which many Roman cities belonged. Tolosa, like many cities, was founded for a link between important trade routes. It was also built to establish Roman presence in the region and to be used as a depot for various materials which were traveling by both river and road. Tolosa’s function was similar to that of other medium-sized cities, however its importance differed from that of the other types of cities whose roles were either governmental or militaristic. 

     The evidence available tends to support the view herein, that Tolosa can be considered a typical Roman city. However because archeology is based on what is found and not what might be found, may aspects of Tolosa remain undefined. It is difficult in some categories to state the typicality of Tolosa due to the lack of evidence to support any answer. All analysis was based on what was present, a fact which could one day become outdated in the light of new discoveries. Indeed, so fragmental is our understanding of even the basics of Tolosa, that an assessment of this sort seems almost a guessing game at some stages. The typical Roman city stereotype – the existence of which can be debated within itself – having hitherto been invented and applied, allows us to assess the extent to which any or every Roman city can be classified as typical.  Since it has been established that Tolosa qualifies for this genre without any trouble, it would seem that a better question to reflect upon now would be, “Are all Roman cities typical?” or, “Is there a Roman city which is not typical?”.