As a matter of fact if you have a legion marching on it, almost any bridge will collapse, there is a reason why, when soldiers cross bridges they are ordered to "break stride" in order to avoid possible issues with resonance of the structure.
And of course, while placing architects and engineers under the bridge was "fair", the poor soldiers were innocent (and at the time among valuable resources to society) so their lives wouldn't have been deliberately risked.
There are some (unconfirmed) reports about the architect standing below the bridge when the scaffolding/support was removed, however.
This was the issue with the "Millenium" bridge in London, renamed unofficially as the "wobbly" bridge.
Because of the nature of it's construction people would over time start to sync their steps, the more this happened the more the bridge swayed and the more people synced their steps.
I think I’ve read something similar about the ex-dictator in Albania, who would place engineers into bunkers they've constructed and then fire on them to see if they hold
There is actually little evidence here that a resonance excited by marching soldiers caused this bridge to fall. The article says that, as usual, the soldiers were instructed to break step when crossing. The article cites a powerful thunderstorm, the effect of strong gusts being 'caught' by the massed soldiers on the bridge, and corrosion of the cables at their anchorages, as likely causes. A survivor reported that the soldiers were stumbling around as if drunk, and could barely stand. There was some speculation that the motion of the bridge caused the soldiers to respond in a coordinated way that exacerbated the swaying, but lurching from side to side is hardly marching.
Contrary to what the grandparent post says, few bridges are susceptible to being brought down by marching.
I recall that we always had to break stride when marching across bridges, but I also recall that this has long been debunked, a properly designed bridge is in no danger at all from people marching across it in step.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18558/were-roma...
As a matter of fact if you have a legion marching on it, almost any bridge will collapse, there is a reason why, when soldiers cross bridges they are ordered to "break stride" in order to avoid possible issues with resonance of the structure.
And of course, while placing architects and engineers under the bridge was "fair", the poor soldiers were innocent (and at the time among valuable resources to society) so their lives wouldn't have been deliberately risked.
There are some (unconfirmed) reports about the architect standing below the bridge when the scaffolding/support was removed, however.