Sorry mate but you ve made a claim and I can't see how exactly your reasoning in your reply justifies these claims.
Wrong for a number of reasons.Concrete/brick constructions, concrete in general, the arch and the dome all are pre-existing Rome and Rome copy pasted many of them while adding improvements and employing them in great scale so "100% Roman" is a kind of fanboyish claim that holds no credible ground.When it comes concrete/brick (or similar) construction, they are a result of a roman revolution that was born and evolved in Rome, so yep,so yep, it's pretty much 100% roman.
The link for Iwan has already answered that for you:
The feature which most distinctly makes the iwan a landmark development in the history of Ancient Near Eastern architecture is the incorporation of a vaulted ceiling (see vault). A vault is defined as a ceiling made from arches, known as arcuated, usually constructed with stone, concrete, or bricks.[11] Earlier buildings would normally be covered in a trabeated manner, with post and lintel beams. However, vaulted ceilings did exist in the ancient world before the invention of the iwan, both within Mesopotamia and outside it. Mesopotamian examples include Susa, where the Elamites vaulted many of their buildings with barrel vaults, and Nineveh, where the Assyrians frequently vaulted their passages for fortification purposes.[12]
Outside Mesopotamia, a number of extant vaulted structures stand, including many examples from Ancient Egypt, Rome, and the Mycenaeans. For example, the Mycenaean Treasury of Atreus, constructed around 1250 BCE, features a large corbeled dome. Egyptian architecture began to use vaulting in their structures after the Third Dynasty, after around 2600 BCE, constructing very early barrel vaults using mud brick.[13]And I ve just proved you that you are wrong by providing links and examples of non-Romans dreaming and applying huge cement/brick buildings from already the 3rd century
No other civilization could even dream of something like the Pantheon.
The Palace of Ardashir Pāpakan (in Persian: دژ اردشير پاپکان Dezh-e Ardashir Pāpakān), also known as the Atash-kadeh آتشکده, is a castle located on the slopes of the mountain on which Dezh Dokhtar is situated on. Built in AD 224 by King Ardashir I of the Sassanian Empire, it is located two kilometers (1.2 miles) north of the ancient city of Gor, i.e. the old city of Piruz-Apad in Pars, in ancient Persia (Iran).
an earlier Parthian arced dorway in Hatra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Ardashir
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghal%27...h_Dokhtar2.jpg
The name of the castle implies it was dedicated to the Goddess Anahita, to whom the term "Maiden" refers. After capturing Isfahan and Kerman from the Parthians, Ardashir (re)built the city of Gur near the castle in Pirouzabad, making it his capital. After defeating Ardavan V ( Artabanus V ), the Parthian king in a great battle in 224 AD, he built the Palace of Ardashir nearby the Dezh Dokhtar structure. Ardashir's grandfather was a prominent priest of the Goddess Anahita at the nearby temple of Darabgird, "City of Darius."Or even further East:The fortified palace contains many of the recurring features of Sasanian palace and civic architecture: long halls, arches, domes, recessed windows, and stairways. The construction is uniform of roughly shaped stone and mortar, but the surfaces were obviously all finished with a thick coating of plaster or stucco, giving a smooth and elegant appearance, which could have been decorated with ornamentation or painting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetavanaramaya
You have claimed that no other civilization would have dreamed of Pantheon yet the Sassanids have built the greatest arch in the world surpassing Romans.They were building like that some centuries before 6th (see above) ,along with Romans and they were contemporaries of the Romans hence as you can see another civilization contemporary with the Romans were building with similar methods and magnitude.That palace dates back from the 6th century AD if I remember correctly, that's some 8 centuries after the roman concrete revolution began. And four after the Pantheon was built. Your other examples seems to date from much after the roman began developing the engineering I'm talking about too. Hence, the conclusion here is that these buildings come from the influence of Rome.
Moreover why neglect the fact that both civilizations have been heavily influenced by the Hellenistic tradition that was present in the East and have been influenced by the Greek and Eastern ones?The Roman culture was a cosmopolitan, chimaric civilization that was open to influences and never hide its adoption and admiration of Greek aesthetics yet you have claimed somthing like :"100%" Roman
Now if you are saying that the Romans were indeed unique in a generalized appliance of the tecnique in great numbers and scale along along with their effective concrete then I would have agreed.
Of course but this technique is not uniquilly roman as the Sassanid buildings indicate.Also, there is a difference between building with bricks, which civilizations have been doing for thousands of years before Rome was even founded, and the the roman use of concrete faced with bricks. They are different building processes.
Well a point given to the Sassanids thenThe cool thing about the Sassanid palace that you may or may not know is that the arch is not semi-circular, as most romans were, it's actually a parabola, like this one. And that's certainly one of the aspects that made it possisble and show the genius of those responsible for its construction.