It seems like you're listing some advantages of concrete over stone in the context of building during the Roman Empire. Here's a refined version of your points:
-
Flexibility: Concrete, when set, allowed for more versatile building shapes and forms compared to rigid stone.
-
Weight: While concrete can be heavier than stone when dry, it can also be formulated to be lighter, depending on the mixture and materials used, which allows for easier handling and construction.
-
Ease of Use: Concrete can be poured and molded into various shapes, making it more user-friendly than stone, which requires cutting and fitting.
-
Strength and Durability: Roman concrete (opus caementicium) proved to be exceptionally durable and robust, often outlasting stone structures thanks to its resistant properties and the use of volcanic ash, which helped prevent degradation.
Overall, these factors contributed to the widespread use of concrete in construction during the Roman Empire, enabling the creation of iconic structures such as the Pantheon and aqueducts that still stand today.