Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How are Rome's monuments still standing?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 218 posts

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#201

Post by qwytw »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #196
qwytw wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few Roman buildings that had survived intact. Besides the theaters and aqueducts there are basically none which were not later turned into churches. While Roman buildings might have been stronger than those built by the preceding civilizations (then again in the case of Europe (outside of Greece) and Northern Africa Roman there was very little competition, who else built massive coliseums at the the ti…

> Besides the theaters and aqueducts there are basically none which were not later turned into churches I am from Rome, live in Rome, in front of the Forum of Augustus ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_of_Augustus ), there's a large number of Roman buildings that never became churches. Trust me, the Domus Aurea was never a church, Villa Adriana has never been a church,they are both UNESCO's World Heritage Sites…

Yes there are plenty of relatively well preserved Roman ruins, neither Hadrian's Villa or Domus Aurea had survived intact.

I'm not denying that Roman construction techniques were advanced, but it's not like we have much to compare them against. Sure, there aren't as many well preserved Etruscan or Greek ruins in Italy, but they preceded the Romans, had way less resources and not as advanced technology. And the same happened to the Romans who were eventually surpassed by medieval and renaissance Europeans. There magnitudes more surviving medieval buildings compared to Roman buildings, just like there are magnitudes (I would assume) more Roman ones compared ones built by Etruscans/etc.

But that does not mean that Roman architecture was somehow inherently superior. For example had the Carthaginians or some Greek state conquered the mediterranean instead of the Romans (obviously that was unlikely due to various non architecture related reasons) and had the resources to build as much as the Romans did would less of their buildings have survived or would they have been of worse quality everything else staying equal?

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#202

Post by kmonsen »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #69
kmonsen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there strong counterpoints to this? If that is possible it seems extremely more likely than aliens or whatever else people are coming up with.

I spent a few months devouring information on geopolymers. This theory seems very likely. But, Davidovits is the only researcher that has published on the subject that I have seen.

Thank you! Very interesting.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#203

Post by kmonsen »

imtringued wrote: post #191
kmonsen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there strong counterpoints to this? If that is possible it seems extremely more likely than aliens or whatever else people are coming up with.

Aliens are incredibly unlikely. The Egyptians had grain money with demurage fees which encourage hundred year+ projects. Anything they did had a discounted future value that was higher than present value. Building something that lasted 4000 years was economically viable for them.

Right, of course aliens are extremely unlikely. The reason it is even talked about is because there are few convincing explanations how the Egyptians could theoretically have built the pyramids at that time.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#204

Post by emodendroket »

toss1 wrote: post #199
pengaru wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're talking about the PNW, it doesn't take a genius to look around and see nature alone manages to build towering long-lasting structures in that environment. Some of those redwood trees are older than the oldest buildings in the entire nation. The desert's evolved long-lasting structures are shrub-sized and endure by retreating underground. Otherwise there's rocks.

>>nature alone manages to build towering long-lasting structures in that environment. Some of those redwood trees are older than the oldest buildings in the entire nation. Yes, and they are continuously maintained by the living tree's processes, building everything from new roots, bark, branches and leaves. The question you need to ask is how long a dead redwood stays standing in the Pacific Northwest? What is the pr…

We can see the difference weather makes in the case of Cleopatra’s Needle, which in its short stay in New York has seen some weathering it avoided for thousands of years in Egypt.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#205

Post by jaclaz »

Sankozi wrote: post #192
jaclaz wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Briefly (costs/duration): normal steel rebar=1 epoxy coated rebar=1.1-1.3 zinc coated rebar=1.2-1.4 stainless steel rebar=3-4-5 carbon fiber rebar=? What is used, not as "main" reinforcement but to have a (much better) mass strength are fibers, they can be either steel or plastic.

I think I do not understand the numbers. You wrote "costs/duration" so higher the number the worse solution (bigger costs or worse durability), yet the descriptions suggests otherwise.

Sorry, numbers are cost only (1 is "normal" rebar steel) order and text are duration ("normal" steel no text, base duration, the terrible in practice means that it doesn't offer longer duration, and may have issues in adherence to concrete).

Not so surprisingly the higher the cost the longer the duration.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#206

Post by Archelaos »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #197
Archelaos wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being obsessed with building a legacy is not so uncommon. Machiavelli comes into my mind, for whom future fame is one of the most important motivations for rulers. Or think of Pericles, who states in his famous Funeral Oration: "there are mighty monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of this and of succeeding ages".[1] [1] http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/thucydides.html

Renaissance writers like Machiavelli were very influenced by the romans, to the point where some were even into Roman LARPing: Wearing togas, refusing to speak vernacular, etc.

As are the US Americans of today having a Senat, a Capitol, ...

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#207

Post by hosh »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #104
emodendroket wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the Southwest uniquely not harsh? The biggest enemy of most man-made structures is water.

Depends on the material I'd say. Large temperature swings like common in the desert certainly don't help. Wind/sand abrasion could also be an issue. But in general you're right, desert climates can be good for preserving things. The only thing better would probably be a permanent ice cover.

If they are under cover away from UV and heat, they can be well preserved. Modern material tend to degrade in Phoenix sun, and 110° and sometimes 120° summer days.

Arizona will also get monsoons and flash floods.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#208

Post by geeio »

silisili wrote: post #143
emodendroket wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the Southwest uniquely not harsh? The biggest enemy of most man-made structures is water.

Same thought. Where I grew up...if water didn't kill it, tornados would. The only barns that stood the test of time were made from the now nearly extinct chestnut. They turn grey and get knotty and twisty as they age but are nearly indestructible. Everything else rots away in the humidity. One rather interesting memory...I remember my father rebuilding an old barnish structure with railroad ties for the frame. Appare…

Pressure treated wood is kinda like that (it uses something other than tar).

[1]: https://www.homedepot.com/c/ab/types-of-pressure-treated-woo...

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#209

Post by anarticle »

Linosaurus wrote: post #50
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Romans invented concrete, and it was so good that still today the average concrete can't compete with it (its resistance to cracks is one example) Rewind history and roman buildings would still be there. They are thought to be one of the few things that would survive human extinction. The only thing that would outlast them are Giza Pyramids. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

The article did bring up some ways modern concrete is superior in the shorter term: "Among the biggest obstacles to wider adoption of the Roman recipe are its long curing time – it can take up to six months to reach full strength, compared to standard concrete's' 28 days – and lower strength (Perucchio said it's approximately 10 times weaker than modern concrete),"

Some of this is likely due to high lime content, which is self healing. Generally lower strength, longer cure time, but does not get attacked as hard by water due to remineralization. It is similar to how limestone naturally forms (think stalactites).

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#210

Post by Cody_C »

I saw an article a while back about the unique properties of ancient Roman cement. It seems that the sea water hitting the walls created a rare mineral when due to a chemical reaction.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22231

I often wonder about how things are built without preservation/archival in mind. We live in an age where so many things are built in so much faster than the past but, with the expectation that they will be replaced even faster than in the past.

Post reply on HN