7 ms·

Roman concrete and general architectural prowess should be a hint that technology is not always improving over time. It baffles me that people studying the lon

Roman concrete and general architectural prowess should be a hint that technology is not always improving over time. It baffles me that people studying the longevity of Roman concrete tends to attribute it merely to luck… Since when astonishing technology performance is found by luck? I think it is was more likely found with a lot of experiments and progressive improvements over centuries.

XorNot 5y ago
Keep in mind though that the well-built structures are also going to be the ones which survive the best. We have a degree of material quality control (at an affordable price) that the Roman empire could really only dream of.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Obviously, not everything the Romans built is still there. But still, I don’t think they merely stumbled upon a super durable concrete formula by accident. Trial and errors and elbow grease can go a long way.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > Keep in mind though that the well-built structures are also going to be the ones which survive the best. This is of course true, but the amount of buildings still standing is large, not small. And there are plenty more that were purposefully destroyed, or that collapsed during huge earthquakes. It's not like we're fawning over one temple or palace. There are aqueducts, temples, houses, bridges, fortifications - so many. Not to mention things like the Hagia Sophia, the largest church in the world for about 1500 years, built in 5 years.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "Hagia Sophia, the largest church in the world for about 1500 years, built in 5 years." Today it would take 25 and be 250% overbudget, and then require repairs because subcontractor of a subcontractor of a subcontractor fucked up somewhere. And then the IT system in charge of doors wouldn't work.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      I honestly don't believe that any country on Earth today could make a massive habitable structure that stands for >1000 years in an earthquake area in 5 years.
adrianN 5y ago
I think it's attributed to "luck" because the Romans didn't have the theory or the tools necessary to do a systematic search of the problem space and didn't understand why one way of doing it is better than another. It's similar to ancient metallurgy, where we know that some quite impressive results were produced sometimes, but the artificers themselves didn't know exactly why their product was better than the product two countries over.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  I think the results mattered more than understanding why. As opposed to now.
  - moffkalast 5y ago
    Well the why makes it far easier to make the process repeatable, so yes it matter a lot.
athrun 5y ago
Another example is their mastery of acoustics. I remember visiting ruins of Roman amphitheaters when I younger, and getting surprised at how they had managed to design them so that the audience would clearly hear what was happening on stage, even from great distance. I was told it was not entirely clear to us what key principles they were following to get the acoustics working so well and that a lot of their wisdom had been lost to us. It was like 25 years ago, so I hope we've made progress in rediscovering some of these techniques. But still...
- RNCTX 5y ago
  We've lost wisdom from ~200 years ago, never mind 2,000 years ago. If you look around architectural preservation forums and publications you'll find lots of examples of people trying to preserve historic buildings and doing more harm than good by using modern materials. We forget why things rot, we forget why certain paint formulations are better than others, we forget why certain mortars are for certain bricks (that's a big one, lots of old buildings are rendered worthless by a tuck pointing job with modern concrete that breaks all of the bricks in the first couple of years), the list goes on and on.
  - bserge 5y ago
    We didn't. We just don't design for longevity any more. Too many historical/protected buildings sit in disrepair and without being used because no one wants to pay for a "proper" restoration. Why would they? Prices are insane and we live in a capitalist free market society. Even the government doesn't care.
    - RNCTX 5y ago
      I agree and your observation is also true. The short memory is a symptom of the system. The downvotes you're getting are illustrative the glass houses of the management of the tech biz, lol.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  Also some of the architectural techniques used by romans were lost. Also they had running water and toilets which in the 19th century was something unheard of.
silisili 5y ago
The world doesn't reward long term, unfortunately. Today, if someone wanted a building or house built, and one person who knows a special formula and method gives a higher number than someone with rebar and concrete, they lose the contract. I'd imagine in all industries, brilliance has been defeated by cheaper adequacy to some extent. I can think of a few examples offhand, all related to metal and tooling. It's sadly been a race to the bottom, rather than sharing enlightening secrets.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Houses are an interesting example because I think that most people value longevity over at least a few generations, Old houses built 200 years ago in France or England are still used, maintained and highly valued. But more recent buildings have a lifespan that is shorter than a human, and are often ugly. I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours.
  - qayxc 5y ago
    > I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours. This is a very one-sided view. The same argument can be used with other items as well, say shoes for example. Sure 200 years ago shoes were much more durable, but they were also so expensive that not everyone could afford them. Same goes for housing. Sure, you can build beautiful long lasting houses today, but they'd be even less affordable than the modern "ugly boxes". Then there's changing requirements as well. I live in a 100+ year old house and while it's medium to smallish by today's standards, it used to be a twin house back when it was built... In the original layout, rooms were tiny by today's standards not to mention insulation (or lack thereof), heating (wood and coal ovens in every room instead of central heating etc.), fire protection and plumbing. It's much more expensive to modernise an old house and bring it up to code than it is to build a new one that's designed to meet all current requirements from the start.
    - stephc_int13 5y ago
soylentnewsorg 5y ago
I have to completely disagree with this. We absolutely can make better concrete. In fact, we can make cars super fast, super reliable, and bulletproof too. The question is - why would we. Things cost money. The hoover dam is made of concrete, is a hundred years old, and is doing just fine. For most concrete applications we are comparing the roman construction to, we use a balance of cost and utility. And here's the fun thing: when we need much better structural integrity, we don't even use concrete, we use other things. So this question then becomes "the puritans had better horse carriages than we build now, why?" Well, it's not because we can't build a better horse carriage. It's because when we need to move a lot of heavy things, we use a truck. There is no demand for expensive long-lasting concrete, except in rare cases like a big dam - where we do use long-lasting concrete. And yes, Roman concrete was luck, not science. Because they have very little understanding of material sciences compared to what we know now. In fact, if I remember correctly they built a bunch of stuff out of sandstone, which burns, and burned down Jerusalem. But I may be misremembering something the tour guide said. The fact is, without material sciences, you simply cannot run a bunch of experiments using trial and error to test things for over a century. Because while they improved over centuries, they could only test a couple of things to last those centuries (because you have to wait a hundred years for the results). Lots of cultures tried concrete. One got it randomly right. There are people that go to a hundred palm readers, who all say random things. They find one that correctly predicts an event. Their takeaway is "that palm reader is real." That's called survivorship bias. Old stuff is fun and mythical. They discovered some very basic facts about the universe. Extremely basic by modern standards. Their top scientists did what kids in 9th grade now know. Saying otherwise - that's just romanticizing the past.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  I think that most of our top engineers would not be able to do what Eratosthenes did with a wooden stick and some calculations (calculating the earth circumference and tilt). Of course we collectively have much better Science today, but at the individual level I don't think we are smarter in any way. And we tend to underestimate the wisdom that is lost after each generation. Why do you think the USA was able to send people on the moon in 1969 but is struggling to do it again now?

XorNot 5y ago

Keep in mind though that the well-built structures are also going to be the ones which survive the best. We have a degree of material quality control (at an affordable price) that the Roman empire could really only dream of.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Obviously, not everything the Romans built is still there. But still, I don’t think they merely stumbled upon a super durable concrete formula by accident. Trial and errors and elbow grease can go a long way.
tsimionescu 5y ago
> Keep in mind though that the well-built structures are also going to be the ones which survive the best. This is of course true, but the amount of buildings still standing is large, not small. And there are plenty more that were purposefully destroyed, or that collapsed during huge earthquakes. It's not like we're fawning over one temple or palace. There are aqueducts, temples, houses, bridges, fortifications - so many. Not to mention things like the Hagia Sophia, the largest church in the world for about 1500 years, built in 5 years.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "Hagia Sophia, the largest church in the world for about 1500 years, built in 5 years." Today it would take 25 and be 250% overbudget, and then require repairs because subcontractor of a subcontractor of a subcontractor fucked up somewhere. And then the IT system in charge of doors wouldn't work.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    I honestly don't believe that any country on Earth today could make a massive habitable structure that stands for >1000 years in an earthquake area in 5 years.

adrianN 5y ago

I think it's attributed to "luck" because the Romans didn't have the theory or the tools necessary to do a systematic search of the problem space and didn't understand why one way of doing it is better than another. It's similar to ancient metallurgy, where we know that some quite impressive results were produced sometimes, but the artificers themselves didn't know exactly why their product was better than the product two countries over.

DeathArrow 5y ago
I think the results mattered more than understanding why. As opposed to now.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  Well the why makes it far easier to make the process repeatable, so yes it matter a lot.

athrun 5y ago

Another example is their mastery of acoustics. I remember visiting ruins of Roman amphitheaters when I younger, and getting surprised at how they had managed to design them so that the audience would clearly hear what was happening on stage, even from great distance. I was told it was not entirely clear to us what key principles they were following to get the acoustics working so well and that a lot of their wisdom had been lost to us. It was like 25 years ago, so I hope we've made progress in rediscovering some of these techniques. But still...

RNCTX 5y ago
We've lost wisdom from ~200 years ago, never mind 2,000 years ago. If you look around architectural preservation forums and publications you'll find lots of examples of people trying to preserve historic buildings and doing more harm than good by using modern materials. We forget why things rot, we forget why certain paint formulations are better than others, we forget why certain mortars are for certain bricks (that's a big one, lots of old buildings are rendered worthless by a tuck pointing job with modern concrete that breaks all of the bricks in the first couple of years), the list goes on and on.
- bserge 5y ago
  We didn't. We just don't design for longevity any more. Too many historical/protected buildings sit in disrepair and without being used because no one wants to pay for a "proper" restoration. Why would they? Prices are insane and we live in a capitalist free market society. Even the government doesn't care.
  - RNCTX 5y ago
    I agree and your observation is also true. The short memory is a symptom of the system. The downvotes you're getting are illustrative the glass houses of the management of the tech biz, lol.
DeathArrow 5y ago
Also some of the architectural techniques used by romans were lost. Also they had running water and toilets which in the 19th century was something unheard of.

silisili 5y ago

The world doesn't reward long term, unfortunately. Today, if someone wanted a building or house built, and one person who knows a special formula and method gives a higher number than someone with rebar and concrete, they lose the contract. I'd imagine in all industries, brilliance has been defeated by cheaper adequacy to some extent. I can think of a few examples offhand, all related to metal and tooling. It's sadly been a race to the bottom, rather than sharing enlightening secrets.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Houses are an interesting example because I think that most people value longevity over at least a few generations, Old houses built 200 years ago in France or England are still used, maintained and highly valued. But more recent buildings have a lifespan that is shorter than a human, and are often ugly. I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours.
- qayxc 5y ago
  > I think that Architecture is the most visible beacon of civilization, and I don't like what it tells us about ours. This is a very one-sided view. The same argument can be used with other items as well, say shoes for example. Sure 200 years ago shoes were much more durable, but they were also so expensive that not everyone could afford them. Same goes for housing. Sure, you can build beautiful long lasting houses today, but they'd be even less affordable than the modern "ugly boxes". Then there's changing requirements as well. I live in a 100+ year old house and while it's medium to smallish by today's standards, it used to be a twin house back when it was built... In the original layout, rooms were tiny by today's standards not to mention insulation (or lack thereof), heating (wood and coal ovens in every room instead of central heating etc.), fire protection and plumbing. It's much more expensive to modernise an old house and bring it up to code than it is to build a new one that's designed to meet all current requirements from the start.
  - stephc_int13 5y ago

soylentnewsorg 5y ago

I have to completely disagree with this. We absolutely can make better concrete. In fact, we can make cars super fast, super reliable, and bulletproof too. The question is - why would we. Things cost money. The hoover dam is made of concrete, is a hundred years old, and is doing just fine. For most concrete applications we are comparing the roman construction to, we use a balance of cost and utility. And here's the fun thing: when we need much better structural integrity, we don't even use concrete, we use other things. So this question then becomes "the puritans had better horse carriages than we build now, why?" Well, it's not because we can't build a better horse carriage. It's because when we need to move a lot of heavy things, we use a truck. There is no demand for expensive long-lasting concrete, except in rare cases like a big dam - where we do use long-lasting concrete. And yes, Roman concrete was luck, not science. Because they have very little understanding of material sciences compared to what we know now. In fact, if I remember correctly they built a bunch of stuff out of sandstone, which burns, and burned down Jerusalem. But I may be misremembering something the tour guide said. The fact is, without material sciences, you simply cannot run a bunch of experiments using trial and error to test things for over a century. Because while they improved over centuries, they could only test a couple of things to last those centuries (because you have to wait a hundred years for the results). Lots of cultures tried concrete. One got it randomly right. There are people that go to a hundred palm readers, who all say random things. They find one that correctly predicts an event. Their takeaway is "that palm reader is real." That's called survivorship bias. Old stuff is fun and mythical. They discovered some very basic facts about the universe. Extremely basic by modern standards. Their top scientists did what kids in 9th grade now know. Saying otherwise - that's just romanticizing the past.

stephc_int13 5y ago
I think that most of our top engineers would not be able to do what Eratosthenes did with a wooden stick and some calculations (calculating the earth circumference and tilt). Of course we collectively have much better Science today, but at the individual level I don't think we are smarter in any way. And we tend to underestimate the wisdom that is lost after each generation. Why do you think the USA was able to send people on the moon in 1969 but is struggling to do it again now?