you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

To construct it they would have had to build a support structure nearly a thousand feet long, across a river, that could take the weight of a masonry arch bridge nearly a thousand feet long until the keystones could be put in. Not hard to imagine why it got rejected.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    That was basically just the process of creating bridges back then, it's not far off from how it works today...

    I don't think that was an avoidable issue, you need to build temporary support structures while bridge building is in progress. In other words, if an extensive support structure is a deal breaker for you, it turns out you're not building a bridge today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Sure, but think of the scale of what they would need and the technology they had. 1000 feet long and as tall as a ship, carrying a stone structure that would weigh probably hundreds or thousands of tons, across what I'd imagine was a pretty busy waterway.

  • source
  • parent