Edit- After reading most of the comments the general consensus is listed below:
1. The unique composite matrix of the concrete used gives it a self-healing property. When cracks form in the concrete, it will naturally seal them.
2. The Pantheon was a very significant structure which led to meticulous maintenance and restorations
3. The Romans didn’t have modern engineering. So they didn’t know exactly how strong they’d have to build the Pantheon to make it last. Their solution was to overbuild the hell out of it.
4. Survivorship bias. There were thousands of buildings constructed by the Romans but very few remain which are the ones we marvel at.
​
In: 564
Maintenance.
Anyone who says things like the ancients had “better materials” is just dumbing things down.
Is Roman concrete pretty good? Yea. Is it a magical building material? No. Can modern concrete match up to it? Yes.
The real thing is utilization, and maintenance.
For one. The pantheon only has people walking around inside of it. That is SIGNIFICANTLY less load than say, a bridge with semi trucks driving over it constantly. So it’s going to experience much fewer issues than the modern road.
And, it isn’t perfect, hell there was a really big restoration of the pantheon less than 100 years ago that fixed some pretty big cracks. But that’s the thing. For the entire existence of the pantheon, it was a Roman Temple built by emperors. So they had the money and motivation to take really good care of it. And then AFTER that, it became a church. And in that time the Catholic Church had the money and Motivation to take really good care of it.
Any modern structure that is crumbling is not crumbling because we are bad at building things. It is crumbling because no one has the money or motivation to fix it.
If we really wanted to, we could keep ANY building standing for 5,000 years. It would just take the time and effort of keeping it in good shape.
Latest Answers