[carlob]

It's also that the Romans thought they were going to be around forever so they built everything to last.

If you look at the Colosseum, it looks the way it is because it was willfully destroyed and used for construction material over centuries: when Rome became the seat of the Papacy, the Colosseum was remembered as a place where the early martyrs were slaughtered by wild beasts, not as a nice building to be preserved for tourists.

On the other hand many Roman bridges throughout Europe still stand and some are still in use (yes even by cars). But the really amazing case is the Pantheon, that was turned into a church early on and preserved and restored for almost 2000 years. It's true that not all we see is original, but the structural engineering is.

[wtvanhest]

The Pantheon is one of the most impressive buildings I have ever seen. The light coming through the top is just incredible.

[ProfessorLayton]

Random tangent: As much as I love living in sunny California, it saddens me that due to earthquakes, nothing we build here will still be around in 2,000 years.

[wjnqx]

That's only because the construction isn't as sturdy. Italy routinely experiences earthquakes similar in magnitude to California.

[anacleto]

Curious fact on the Pantheon: pope julius ii had to tore away the bronze ceiling to pay Michelangelo for his frescos in the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

[ionised]

The Pantheon is great but I would have preferred to see it as it was before the Catholics came in, gutted it and turned it into another Church.

[weberc2]

> It's also that the Romans thought they were going to be around forever so they built everything to last.

Is that a cause or a byproduct?