Regardless of what they did have and how much time they had or didn't have, they certainly didn't have the math, and they certainly didn't have the means for testing, so where's the impetus to do something different, if there's not even a means to compare against the existing structural materials?
Furthermore, the Romans weren't even aware of the ogive arch, which was the technological breakthrough that distinguishes Notre Dame from the Pantheon. We can clearly contrast that with the Mayans and Incans, who never got past the lintel beam arch, or even the builders of Stonehenge. And, the Romans clearly could have built ogive arches, since that's not even a materials advancement, yet they didn't even think about it. Certainly, the Pantheon would have been so much more impressive had flying buttresses been employed. The builders of the great cathedrals would surely have loved to have reinforced concrete, yet they neither made it or envisioned it, even though they clearly had a need and a desire for better building materials.
The Gothic designers would probably have thought that Grace Cathedral in San Francisco was the work of the devil, because it uses no flying buttresses, because of steel-reinforced concrete construction.
Inevitability is only apparent as a hindsight. We only see history in hindsight, and see a progression through history as inevitable, but history demonstrates that progress occurs in gits and starts, and at any given time, the prevailing wisdom is that the pinnacle of achievement has been reached. We are the only generation that is probably cognizant of fact the we are NOT at a pinnacle, and that's only because the rate of change has been so large, compared to the Roman, or even the Victorian eras, where centuries or decades elapse before major changes occur. This is the only period of time where technological changes occur so rapidly that multiple iterations can be seen in one's own lifetime.
TTFN
FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize
