Was Roman Concrete Better?

Here's a good video on the use and tradeoffs of Roman concrete engineering: [this video] TL;DW: whereas modern construction uses rebar as a way to keep concrete from fracturing under tensile stress, the Romans made their constructions enormous so that the weight of the structure itself would compress the material and keep it from failing from tensile stress. Their monuments weren't built huge just because it cool, but also because it was practical. But large concrete constructions are both expensive and take years and years to cure, and depending on your concrete chemistry the strongest mixtures can also be much more difficult to work with.

First, we only see the part of Roman architecture that lasted. There's an observer bias. The Romans also made plenty of ephemeral stuff, just like we are making plenty of ephemeral stuff. See also [this video] Second, there's more to engineering than making stuff last long. There are different trade-offs. Cost being one of them, but also different material properties. Eg re-inforced concrete is awesome for lots and lots of applications that the Romans couldn't even have dreamed of. Alas, it's not economical to make re-inforced concrete that lasts forever. (Not even sure if it's physically possible.)

I agree with your general point that we are in no way inherently superior to our ancestors, but Roman concrete, Damacus steel, and Greek fire are inferior to what we have today to accomplish the same things. Practical Engineering on Roman concrete. The TL;DR is that we are far more advanced. [this video] We do know how to make Damascus steel: [link] This fellow says we don't know how to make the historical Greek fire but acknowledges we can make identical substances: [link] We could build the Great Pyramid today using modern methods in 5 years using 2000 workers and $5 billion USD vs historical 20 years and 10s of thousands of workers: [link]