Was Roman Concrete Better?

Why HN readers recommended it

HN recommends it as a clear, balanced answer to claims that Roman concrete was better than ours.

This is a summary from the source dataset, not an endorsement by Hacker News or the video creator.

Video & recommendation details

Creator / channel

Practical Engineering

Topic

roman vs modern concrete

Format

explainer

Level

general

HN recommenders in dataset

4

HN mentions in dataset

6

Recommendation years in dataset

2021–2024

These counts and years describe the included Hacker News records; they are not YouTube views or the video’s publication date.

From the original HN conversations

Excerpts from the recorded comments. Follow each source for the full comment and surrounding discussion.

• The civil engineering-oriented channel Practical Engineering has a pretty good video on Roman concrete vs. modern. [VIDEO] The primary tldw; is the fact modern concrete uses steel rebar for tensile strength, whereas the Romans relied on architectural techniques to minimize tensile forces on their structures. …

• Here's a good video on the use and tradeoffs of Roman concrete engineering: [VIDEO] TL;DW: whereas modern construction uses rebar as a way to keep concrete from fracturing under tensile stress, the Romans made their constructions enormous so that the weight of the structure itself …

• Concrete without rebar lacks tensile strength, and Roman concrete is no different. When using materials with insufficient tensile strength, you're severely restricted in the kinds of structures you can build. That's why Roman buildings used so many domes and arches, and why they were massive …