[chongli]

No it isn't. The Romans were every bit as smart as we are today. The biggest difference between us and them is our tools.

Similarly, compare the computers of the 60's (or even the 80's) to the computers of today. The difference in outcomes reflects the difference in capabilities.

[falcolas]

> The biggest difference between us and them is our tools.

Technology (gained throughout history) moreso than tools. For example, the Romans had concrete, (and it's a kind we still use occasionally), but we have about 1,000 different types of concrete, all with different mechanical properties and capabilities.

We have concrete water can flow freely through. We have concrete (well, more accurately techniques of building concrete forms) which has strength in tension. We have concrete which can bend, we have concrete which is astoundingly light. We have concrete we can can pump, and we have concrete which we can mechanically compact.

But when it comes to tools - aside from transporting concrete - we still use forms, screeding boards, and trowels in a dozen different shapes. Even the best concrete surfacing tools are trowels spun with a motor.

[afarrell]

The Romans were not as smart as us because they did not have the tools to understand the neurological effect of lead poisoning.

[falcolas]

They realized they were being poisoned, but they had the cause confused - they blamed it on acidic foods, since non-acidic foods wouldn't leech much lead out of their utensils.

[ablob]

The Romans would be less smart than us, if they had the tools to understand the neurological effect of lead poisoning but couldn't do it anyway.