The loss of Roman concrete happened before the collapse of the Western Roman empire. This is one exception to your insightful comment. Major public works were halted in the last century before the collapse. The last major project in Western Europe was the Temple of Minerva around 325 CE.
In Constantinople, a small church, tha Hagia Irene, has concrete walls. Larger works, like the famous city walls, don’t have any concrete. It honestly may not have been an appropriate material choice, but other projects didn’t use Roman concrete either. I think this might be because volcanic ash wasn’t readily available.
Concrete was mostly used in large building projects. These were expensive and thus usually sponsored by those wealthy enough to invest in such projects, particularly if they were vanity projects. In Rome, that would be the Emperors. Outside, it would typically take multiple sponsors.
The decline in economic stability around the Third Century, the reduction in profitable conquest due to military power being invested in civil wars of succession and the increasingly expensive bribes for the Praetorian Guard all contributed to Emperors having less money to spend on such projects, with predictable results: Less projects were built.
This is vaguely recited from an AskHistorians post, all errors are on me.
What started out as a half assed comment with only 2 braincells, sparked a very interesting conversation about economics and antropology. It’s been really insightful and it’s captured my curiosity. Now I want to learn more.
Thank you nerds! Keep up the nerding, you guys are the best <3
The loss of Roman concrete happened before the collapse of the Western Roman empire. This is one exception to your insightful comment. Major public works were halted in the last century before the collapse. The last major project in Western Europe was the Temple of Minerva around 325 CE.
In Constantinople, a small church, tha Hagia Irene, has concrete walls. Larger works, like the famous city walls, don’t have any concrete. It honestly may not have been an appropriate material choice, but other projects didn’t use Roman concrete either. I think this might be because volcanic ash wasn’t readily available.
Actually, it’s not entirely disconnected.
Concrete was mostly used in large building projects. These were expensive and thus usually sponsored by those wealthy enough to invest in such projects, particularly if they were vanity projects. In Rome, that would be the Emperors. Outside, it would typically take multiple sponsors.
The decline in economic stability around the Third Century, the reduction in profitable conquest due to military power being invested in civil wars of succession and the increasingly expensive bribes for the Praetorian Guard all contributed to Emperors having less money to spend on such projects, with predictable results: Less projects were built.
This is vaguely recited from an AskHistorians post, all errors are on me.
What started out as a half assed comment with only 2 braincells, sparked a very interesting conversation about economics and antropology. It’s been really insightful and it’s captured my curiosity. Now I want to learn more.
Thank you nerds! Keep up the nerding, you guys are the best <3