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

31–40 of 218 posts

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#31

Post by orwin »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

TL;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…

You're right to not buy this entirely. Roman concrete was great because it could harden while in water. And waterworks was probably the primary reason why Rome was such an early superpower (for multiple reasons: hygiene, stronger ports and also mechanical force, as "free" energy give you productivity increases. But it had less tensile strength than our current concrete.

The reason why multiple structures still hold today and will hold longer than most of our structures is more simple than that: they over-engineered the shit of everything that still hold today. Also for the same reasons, multiple bridges, castles, church or structures built between the low medieval era and high med/renaissance will likely last as much as roman structures did.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#33

Post by WalterBright »

FredPret wrote: post #9
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

TL;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…

It's critical to protect the concrete from water.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#34

Post by atdrummond »

cblconfederate wrote: post #19
atdrummond wrote: post #10

They’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…

> for the same reasons we preserve Victorian era buildings. Not really, christians destroyed a huge amount and ruthlessly, and tons of marble was 'repurposed'. The best chance of a building to survive was being used as a church

I suppose I just don’t find that substantially different than the National Trust repurposing say Ickworth into a hotel. I understand that contemporary society places a higher value on a certain type of “accurate” preservation than many societies that came before but if people had truly wanted historical Roman buildings gone, they would be.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#35

Post by atdrummond »

Pigalowda wrote: post #29
cblconfederate wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for the same reasons we preserve Victorian era buildings. Not really, christians destroyed a huge amount and ruthlessly, and tons of marble was 'repurposed'. The best chance of a building to survive was being used as a church

I recently found out about this sad column repurposed in 608 AD as an honor to the Eastern Roman Emperor, Phocas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Phocas The city had been sacked multiple times at that point and I suppose it was the best they could do.

What’s crazy there is that by the mid-1800s, sketches would only show a portion of the column due to the rise in ground level over the intermediate period.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#36

Post by SQueeeeeL »

microtherion wrote: post #28
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

TL;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…

The explanation in the article is fascinating, but I wonder how much the Romans knew about the durability of their concrete at the time, and to what extent they just got lucky by the mix of material that happened to be available in their area.

I feel like a single human could trial and error their way to a very good paper airplane over the course of 2 or 3 days. It seems pretty obvious that a large group of people would trial and error products in much the same way, especially those so essential to their civilization. Especially with the large trade networks that we know to exist back then.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#37

Post by peoplefromibiza »

atdrummond wrote: post #10

They’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…

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

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#38

Post by kmonsen »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #22
hujni wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've wondered if maybe the "stones" of the Pyramids were poured. It wouldn't surprise me given the lack of gaps.

You aren't the only one. https://youtu.be/znQk_yBHre4

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.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#39

Post by cblconfederate »

atdrummond wrote: post #34
cblconfederate wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for the same reasons we preserve Victorian era buildings. Not really, christians destroyed a huge amount and ruthlessly, and tons of marble was 'repurposed'. The best chance of a building to survive was being used as a church

I suppose I just don’t find that substantially different than the National Trust repurposing say Ickworth into a hotel. I understand that contemporary society places a higher value on a certain type of “accurate” preservation than many societies that came before but if people had truly wanted historical Roman buildings gone, they would be.

tons of pagan roman and greek statues were destroyed. what's left today is only a tiny amount

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#40

Post by valarauko »

mrkstu wrote: post #8
ardit33 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN