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

61–70 of 218 posts

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#61

Post by atdrummond »

JSavageOne wrote: post #58
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…

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.

Perhaps 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

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#62

Post by jimmygrapes »

atdrummond wrote: post #46
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

I don’t have the energy to revisit the arguments about Roman concrete that come up every time it is mentioned on HN. Needless to say, the notion that their “superior” method was “forgotten” is a massive oversimplification of what actually happened. Another comment made my point better than I did - which was that Roman buildings that remained standing did so because they were useful for some purpose, often an alternat…

This is probably a rehash from your linked thread, but... perhaps it's both? Better construction materials used in buildings that had the most value in their architecture and/or purpose?

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#63

Post by bsder »

roca wrote: post #26

Did the Romans really know that using certain volcanic rocks would make their concrete structures last longer? Or did they mostly just use whatever aggregate was convenient and the structures that have survived are the ones that used the right rocks? The latter sounds more plausible to me. Of course we can still learn valuable lessons from these surviving structures.

> Did the Romans really know that using certain volcanic rocks would make their concrete structures last longer? Or did they mostly just use whatever aggregate was convenient and the structures that have survived are the ones that used the right rocks?

Why not both? How do you think you discover that certain things work better than others?

Humans are clever in any time.

For example, the Pantheon has a very specific profile (thick at bottom to much thinner at center of rise) to the dome in order to allow unreinforced concrete to be used. That's a case of very deliberate design.

Pompeii is in a highly volcanic area. So, digging is difficult and expensive. This put a wrench in the standard formula for Roman building. So, instead, they elevated everything slightly. That's on the spot ingenuity and convenience.

Finally, there is a survivorship bias--structures specifically built with longevity and durability in mind and maintained by people are the ones that survived.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#64

Post by HPsquared »

rurp wrote: post #57

Tangentially related to this, one of my hobbies is to explore old long abandoned ghost towns and mining camps in the Southwest US. It is really impressive how well many of these structures have held up in harsh climates. One of my favorite parts is seeing how repairs were improvised in the wilderness using whatever supplies happened to be available. The standard approach to trash back then was to throw it in a pile n…

A lot of the old glass bottles were designed to be used again and again.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#65

Post by arcticfox »

atdrummond wrote: post #61
JSavageOne wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps 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 c…

I 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.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#66

Post by throwaway0a5e »

rurp wrote: post #57

Tangentially related to this, one of my hobbies is to explore old long abandoned ghost towns and mining camps in the Southwest US. It is really impressive how well many of these structures have held up in harsh climates. One of my favorite parts is seeing how repairs were improvised in the wilderness using whatever supplies happened to be available. The standard approach to trash back then was to throw it in a pile n…

I don't see how you can call the climate "harsh" with a straight face since it never rarely get moist enough for long enough for water and bacteria to do much to wood and masonry.

There's a reason you pretty much never see 100yr old unmaintained wood and masonry structures in New England, midwest, the PNW, etc.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#68

Post by stevenwoo »

i_have_an_idea wrote: post #56
noyeastguy wrote: post #53

I wonder if there will come a time when society decides it's better to fix ruins such as the Colosseum and the pyramids instead of letting them just rot away.

What would be the practical purpose of "fixing" something like the pyramids? Vs. just preserving them as-is.

IIRC there was a protective limestone layer with a gold cap (removed for use in other buildings by later civilizations) on top of the pyramids versus leaving them as is, they originally did not look like unfinished stone. There is constant wind erosion on the exposed stone layer now. I don't know what a good solution to this now.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#69

Post by tastyfreeze »

kmonsen wrote: post #38
tastyfreeze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#70

Post by pmontra »

bsder wrote: post #63
roca wrote: post #26

Did the Romans really know that using certain volcanic rocks would make their concrete structures last longer? Or did they mostly just use whatever aggregate was convenient and the structures that have survived are the ones that used the right rocks? The latter sounds more plausible to me. Of course we can still learn valuable lessons from these surviving structures.

> Did the Romans really know that using certain volcanic rocks would make their concrete structures last longer? Or did they mostly just use whatever aggregate was convenient and the structures that have survived are the ones that used the right rocks? Why not both? How do you think you discover that certain things work better than others? Humans are clever in any time. For example, the Pantheon has a very specific p…

The Pantheon is maintained but the Colosseum is not and it shows. The interior of the Colosseum is a pile of rocks. However there is a plan to restore the floor https://www.stirworld.com/see-news-rome-announces-plans-for-...
Post reply on HN