3 ms·
> Not bad for something built nearly 2,000 years ago. According to the Pyramids, Stonehenge, Newgrange, Watson Brake, et al., it's a little premature to sugges
by Maursault 4y ago
> Not bad for something built nearly 2,000 years ago.
According to the Pyramids, Stonehenge, Newgrange, Watson Brake, et al., it's a little premature to suggest that. Let's check back in 3,000 years.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 4y agoHehe, that's funny. But the OP clearly meant it relative to other stuff built 2000 years ago, most of which has vanished without leaving a trace, maybe a couple of foundation stones buried under a meter of new topsoil. Have an upvote, it's sad to see you grayed out.
- peoplefromibiza 4y agostone != concrete edit: we have a > 2,000 years old pyramid in Rome too, and it's in perfect shape, because stone != concrete https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Cimeti%C3%A8re_anglais_de_Rome.jpg/1280px-Cimeti%C3%A8re_anglais_de_Rome.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Ci...
- ectopod 4y agoWhat it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Cestius https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Cestius
- moloch-hai 4y agoFunny, its perimeter vs. height approximates pi, rather than the originals' 2pi.
- GuB-42 4y agoThe pyramids are essentially just piles of rocks. The impressive part about them is not really how they stood out the test of time, in fact they lost most of their finer details, but how an ancient civilization managed to make piles of rocks that big. The Pantheon is not a pile of rocks, it is made of engineered materials (concrete), with domes and overhangs. Unlike "pile of rocks" architecture that essentially can't fail, if it wasn't well engineered, it would have collapsed into something unrecognizable.