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.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours 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.