When we look back at the Romans, we do so across a period of time during which many of their skills were lost to whatever cultures and civilisations followed them. But it seems we credit developments to the wrong people all the time.
Normal I guess.
In this case it now seems the Romans didn't invent cement, or if they did, it was a rediscovery; the Macedonians now are the earliest so far believed to use cement.
The Romans certainly exploited cement extremely well and advanced the technology to cements that set underwater, to the use of pumice for lightweight concretes and so on.
My question is about the evolution of ideas and technologies.
Once you have cement and concrete, what comes next in the evolution of materials?
Should we expect they would have gone on to the development of steel re-inforced concrete, high rise buildings (would there have been a Roman Otto and the revolving door?)
What stopped them?
Where should they have gone with their other related technologies and would they necessarily have followed the path we followed with the discovery of Portland Cement? What other path might they have followed?
JMW
Normal I guess.
In this case it now seems the Romans didn't invent cement, or if they did, it was a rediscovery; the Macedonians now are the earliest so far believed to use cement.
The Romans certainly exploited cement extremely well and advanced the technology to cements that set underwater, to the use of pumice for lightweight concretes and so on.
My question is about the evolution of ideas and technologies.
Once you have cement and concrete, what comes next in the evolution of materials?
Should we expect they would have gone on to the development of steel re-inforced concrete, high rise buildings (would there have been a Roman Otto and the revolving door?)
What stopped them?
Where should they have gone with their other related technologies and would they necessarily have followed the path we followed with the discovery of Portland Cement? What other path might they have followed?
JMW