4 ms·
You respond to an article detailing the superior durability of Roman concrete with "they just chose to preserve these buildings" and "they just got lucky", cite
by JSavageOne 5y ago
You respond to an article detailing the superior durability of Roman concrete with "they just chose to preserve these buildings" and "they just got lucky", cite no sources, and this is the top comment on this thread?
Seems HN quality has gone downhill since what I last remember.
- atdrummond 5y agoPerhaps because there are enough people here who have been around for the dozens of comment threads we’ve had about the Roman concrete meme and how the notion that it is A. superior and B. a recipe completely lost to time is very much an extreme simplification of the situation. Rather than spend my effort fighting a battle others have fought, here is an older HN thread with good commentary on the topic and links to countless previous discussions as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22580920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22580920
- arcticfox 5y agoI thought I'd find a lot of references to it not being (A) superior in that thread, but I actually didn't find much of anything supporting your point. Maybe it's deeper in the dang linked threads but I'm not that motivated to find evidence supporting you.
- atdrummond 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27282927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27282927 Here’s a thread from 6 months ago where there is significant discussion about why concrete is used the way it is today. Those parameters/considerations differ from those that the Romans would have faced. And, again, we only have the best examples of Roman cement today available for analysis versus the very wide range of construction quality that occurs today. The very article linked also explains some of the limitations/ways in which Roman cement isn’t ideal/superior - for one, the massively longer curing time.