A good example is we don't even know the details of how Roman concrete was made (apparently much stronger than modern concrete), and it was used to build everything.
Not trying to just jump in an correct you, but there has actually been progress recently made in this area and we're starting to get a scientific understanding of what the Romans learned to do presumably through trial and error. Here's an article I found on the subject, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/04/why-roman-co...
We know how to make Roman concrete. Way may not know the exact historical techniques but we know chemical and material science behind it and can produce it using different methods.
It is the rebar that makes it stronger but unfortunately it is also what gives modern concrete such a tiny lifespan. If you want something to last millennia it is better to build it the Roman way, without rebar.
I respectfully disagree - the design goals are vastly different between ancient Rome and today. There is no reason one couldn't build something that would last milennia, it is simply not economically feasible (and you would have a hard time securing investors).
> it is simply not economically feasible (and you would have a hard time securing investors).
So are Romans really behind us, or are we behind them? We seem bound by the forces of compound interest to never make something durable. But somehow they were capable of it.
