Back then many architects/engineers didn't know enough to engineer 'on the edge' so they tended to massive overkill. Meter thick walls, that sort of thing.
But not everybody built like that, there are also many examples of elegance and material economy. Roman stuff spans the gamut from 'wasteful' to 'optimal'.
Castles were usually built to deal with attackers so likely far strongly built than they would have been otherwise.
This is what always really impresses me about old churches, they go straight up to 100+ meters and it's just square cut stones piled on top of each other lined up with plumb bobs and wires, standing true for 100's of years. Imagine the feat of engineering that the foundation comprises for a building like that.
> But not everybody built like that, there are also many examples of elegance and material economy. Roman stuff spans the gamut from 'wasteful' to 'optimal'.
And note the survivorship bias. The stuff that was "not quite enough strength to be sufficient"-- or even "just barely sufficient" was removed by time.
But not everybody built like that, there are also many examples of elegance and material economy. Roman stuff spans the gamut from 'wasteful' to 'optimal'.
Castles were usually built to deal with attackers so likely far strongly built than they would have been otherwise.
This is what always really impresses me about old churches, they go straight up to 100+ meters and it's just square cut stones piled on top of each other lined up with plumb bobs and wires, standing true for 100's of years. Imagine the feat of engineering that the foundation comprises for a building like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Martin%27s_Cathedral,_Utre...