4 ms·

It is both..... so both the author and you are correct. Modern concrete has rebar, which eventually gets rusted, and corroded, and fails (in 150-200 years). A

It is both..... so both the author and you are correct. Modern concrete has rebar, which eventually gets rusted, and corroded, and fails (in 150-200 years). Also, roman concrete was just thicker/used more material. Also simple stone survives forever, while brick a bit less, and 'simpler mud bricks' and wood a lot less. SO, from Roman times, really only the strongest buildings survived, and everything else is gone. So, there is a survivor bias. We are only looking at the strongest buildings, and not the average one.

mrkstu 5y ago
And as their wealth was staggering, they could afford to build 'strong' more than most ancient civilizations and most of the conquerors just were assimilated rather than wanting to tear it down to the dirt.
- valarauko 5y ago
  The Romans weren't any more significantly wealthier than other contemporary Old World civilizations/empires - China, Persia, or India, for example. Conquerors being assimilated is a common theme that runs across most of these civilizations as well. However, monumental buildings that survive invading armies just tend to be dismantled/repurposed by the locals for the building material over time. I suspect that part of the reason for Roman monuments surviving is that the fall of Western Rome lead to an overall decrease in the urban population & subsequent demand for building materials. China, India, & Persia likely saw no such population decreases.
  - Bayart 5y ago
    Every single building that wasn't reused was dismantled for materials. Every single one. There's absolutely nothing special about Roman monuments.
  - freewilly1040 5y ago
    To take one example of repurposing, amphitheaters turned out to make pretty good mini-fortresses, so in some cases the town simply moved inside!
_carbyau_ 5y ago
Using survivor bias to our benefit though. Evolution for buildings as it were. While the article title is a blanket question on ALL Roman monuments - which clearly didn't all survive - the article is about people investigating how the long lasting ones do what they do. Which sounds great to me.

mrkstu 5y ago

And as their wealth was staggering, they could afford to build 'strong' more than most ancient civilizations and most of the conquerors just were assimilated rather than wanting to tear it down to the dirt.

valarauko 5y ago
The Romans weren't any more significantly wealthier than other contemporary Old World civilizations/empires - China, Persia, or India, for example. Conquerors being assimilated is a common theme that runs across most of these civilizations as well. However, monumental buildings that survive invading armies just tend to be dismantled/repurposed by the locals for the building material over time. I suspect that part of the reason for Roman monuments surviving is that the fall of Western Rome lead to an overall decrease in the urban population & subsequent demand for building materials. China, India, & Persia likely saw no such population decreases.
- Bayart 5y ago
  Every single building that wasn't reused was dismantled for materials. Every single one. There's absolutely nothing special about Roman monuments.
- freewilly1040 5y ago
  To take one example of repurposing, amphitheaters turned out to make pretty good mini-fortresses, so in some cases the town simply moved inside!

_carbyau_ 5y ago

Using survivor bias to our benefit though. Evolution for buildings as it were. While the article title is a blanket question on ALL Roman monuments - which clearly didn't all survive - the article is about people investigating how the long lasting ones do what they do. Which sounds great to me.