Hot take: Roman concrete wasn't better, just different in a way that worked for them

I was reading an article from Archaeology Magazine last night about Roman harbor construction, and it hit me that their concrete wasn't some magic formula. It had lime clasts that actually helped cracks self heal when water got in, but it also took like 10 years to fully cure. Modern Portland cement sets in days but cracks easily. So really they just had way more patience than we do. Has anyone else read about this and felt like the 'ancient secrets' hype is overblown?

2 comments

2 Comments

joelp811mo ago

Gotta agree with you on that, the hype around ancient secrets is way overblown. I read that same article and it basically said Roman concrete was a trade off, just like everything else we build with. The self healing part is cool (lime clasts reacting with water and all that), but nobody talks about how they had to wait a decade for it to be fully usable. Imagine telling a contractor today that their foundation won't be ready for ten years they'd laugh you out of the room. Our modern concrete sets fast because we need it to, especially for highways and bridges that get used right away. So yeah, it's not better, it's just slow and forgiving, while ours is fast and brittle.

jones.brooke1mo ago

Ngl @joelp81 you just changed my whole view on that.