How much population did the Romans build for? How much weight were the Romans subjecting their structures to, and at what acceleration/deceleration?
Do you know the movements of the supply and demand curves of the materials required since Roman times?
These types of hypotheticals are a waste of time, and only serve to illustrate hubris, as if something as complicated as comparing Roman construction and resources to modern day construction and resources could be possible.
> Can't we really do better today, with all our advanced technology?
You implied a whole host of things with this statement, and considering the topic of this thread, also ramming a Roman bridge with a fully loaded modern day cargo ship.
The point is there are so many moving parameters, it is nonsensical to take 1 result of 1 technique from 1 point of time and use that as a basis for what one can expect at other points in time.
This is survivorship bias in action. They intended to build a bridge. That is all we can infer from the fact that a bridge exists. That they used available materials and the bridge was not abused by subsequent usage outside its design spec is not proof of any specific intention on the part of the builder. That exists only in your head. It's like assuming dinosaurs died in specific spots with the intent that their bones petrify and fossilize. You're reading too much into not enough facts.
Maybe, but lots of roman buildings endured the time in much better shape, than many buildings that were build after them. Have you seen some of them in front of you? I have and I am impressed. (I am in italy right now to go look at some more).
Also we know a bit more about the romans than just their bridges.
Do you know the movements of the supply and demand curves of the materials required since Roman times?
These types of hypotheticals are a waste of time, and only serve to illustrate hubris, as if something as complicated as comparing Roman construction and resources to modern day construction and resources could be possible.