How are Rome's monuments still standing?
1–10 of 218 posts
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#2TL;DR: their concrete was different.
> Roman concrete, on the other hand, is a simpler mix of quicklime made from baking and crushing limestone rocks and, most importantly, volcanic rock aggregates of various types, which were abundant in the region surrounding Rome. In contrast to the aggregates used in modern concrete, these volcanic materials used by the Romans are highly reactive and the resulting concrete remains chemically active for centuries after it first hardens.
By the way, I don't buy this entirely. Let me tell you why.
The Pantheon is mostly stones and bricks, and "some" concrete to keep the bricks together. These large stones are held together by simple force of gravity, very much like the Pyramids in Egypt (~4,000 years old, or double the age of the Colosseum or the Pantheon).
I'm not a materials engineer (just a software engineer). Can someone with more knowledge comment on my view?
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#3They didn't use javascript?
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#4TL;DR: their concrete was different. > Roman concrete, on the other hand, is a simpler mix of quicklime made from baking and crushing limestone rocks and, most importantly, volcanic rock aggregates of various types, which were abundant in the region surrounding Rome. In contrast to the aggregates used in modern concrete, these volcanic materials used by the Romans are highly reactive and the resulting concrete remain…
[deleted]
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#5TL;DR: their concrete was different. > Roman concrete, on the other hand, is a simpler mix of quicklime made from baking and crushing limestone rocks and, most importantly, volcanic rock aggregates of various types, which were abundant in the region surrounding Rome. In contrast to the aggregates used in modern concrete, these volcanic materials used by the Romans are highly reactive and the resulting concrete remain…
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.
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#6Here’s some great videos on this question from YouTuber ToldinStone - Garret Ryan
Author of Naked Statues, Fat Gladiators and War Elephants
Why was Roman concrete forgotten during the Middle Ages?
See also his YouTube series: History of Rome in 15 Buildings
The Colosseum: https://youtu.be/m6iHR8zqbiM
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#7TL;DR: their concrete was different. > Roman concrete, on the other hand, is a simpler mix of quicklime made from baking and crushing limestone rocks and, most importantly, volcanic rock aggregates of various types, which were abundant in the region surrounding Rome. In contrast to the aggregates used in modern concrete, these volcanic materials used by the Romans are highly reactive and the resulting concrete remain…
Some structures were build without any concrete at all. That being said, they've build sea walls that have lasted thousands of years.
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#8TL;DR: their concrete was different. > Roman concrete, on the other hand, is a simpler mix of quicklime made from baking and crushing limestone rocks and, most importantly, volcanic rock aggregates of various types, which were abundant in the region surrounding Rome. In contrast to the aggregates used in modern concrete, these volcanic materials used by the Romans are highly reactive and the resulting concrete remain…
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…
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.
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#9TL;DR: their concrete was different. > Roman concrete, on the other hand, is a simpler mix of quicklime made from baking and crushing limestone rocks and, most importantly, volcanic rock aggregates of various types, which were abundant in the region surrounding Rome. In contrast to the aggregates used in modern concrete, these volcanic materials used by the Romans are highly reactive and the resulting concrete remain…
We use reinforced concrete, concrete with steel bars inside. This allows us to built really thin and strong concrete bridges, balconies, roofs, etc.
But the steel rusts after a couple of decades.
Rusted steel is marginally larger than new steel.
So when the steel bars expand by rusting, it pushes against the concrete from the inside, causing cracks. Then lots of water can get in it rusts faster.
Eventually chunks of concrete fall off and structural collapse follows.
If we built like the Romans, it would be more expensive, but would last 1k+ years.
Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?
#10They’re not. The Romans built a huge amount and much of their artistic architectural works remaining today were purposely preserved, even if reused for some alternative purpose.
Yes, there are some construction techniques they used that contributed to better survival rates than some other structure types. But mostly we’ve ended up with what was lucky enough to survive. Replay the historical tape again and we might be surprised by what didn’t survive war, fires, other natural disasters on the second go round.