6 ms·

The cathedral with the highest nave (ie height of ceiling in the main worship area) is the Hagia Sophia. Its nave is ~7.5m/25ft higher than any other cathedral.

The cathedral with the highest nave (ie height of ceiling in the main worship area) is the Hagia Sophia. Its nave is ~7.5m/25ft higher than any other cathedral. Although it still stands, it is technically not a church anymore. The Romans took it for a while and then the Turks. It had been a museum and last year became a mosque again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia

devoutsalsa 5y ago
It's also beautiful. It's pretty interesting to how it's been modified from a church to a mosque, too. Typically mosques are oriented so that when you pray towards Mecca, you're also naturally oriented towards the back of the building. Since Hagia Sophia was originally a church, it's not quite oriented towards Mecca. The carpet is rotated a few degrees clockwise, so you pray a few degrees off of the natural orientation of the architecture. I had the opportunity to visit about a month ago => https://www.instagram.com/p/CTY85M-IhBu/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CTY85M-IhBu/. Many of the mosques in Turkey are just gorgeous. If you're in Turkey at some point, a day trip from Istanbul to see 4 biggest mosques in Edirne is very much worth it.
- prox 5y ago
  The Hagia Sophia is World Wonder. Its size resembles a small mountain, the scale on the inside is just unbelievable! The blue mosque across the park there is also a feat of engineering. Highly recommended!
pvg 5y ago
The Romans took it for a while Do you mean the conquest of the 4th crusade? Those people weren't romans, arguably nobody was by the 13th century - perhaps if anyone, the locals had a better claim to it than the conquerors.
- srcreigh 5y ago
  There was a thing called the Holy Roman Empire. [0] An Orthodox seminary professor remarked that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire - so you may be onto something. Although I took a history of Christianity course in uni, it was taught by a RC priest, and there were no lessons about the crusades. You did get me curious though, maybe I'll get a book about that whole situation at the time. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    from that page: > In a famous assessment of the name, the political philosopher Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This body which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
  - pvg 5y ago
    I wonder if the source of the confusion is this sort of terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire it sort of sounds like a synonym for Roman, it was one of the (curiously few!) conquests of Constantinople, etc. It just wasn't actually Roman anything.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I’m bemused how you could possibly have a third-level course on the general history of Christianity that skipped the crusades.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  The Eastern Roman Empire fell in 1453 when the Seljuk Turks conquered Constantinople. The Ottoman Emperor's titles included Kaysar-i-Rum. I can't remember the dates but when the Greeks were conquering Crete their co-linguists described the conquerors as Hellenes while they were Romans. If you go by the criterion of (primary) self-identification there were Romans until the 1800s at least. By unbroken institutional continuity with the bureaucracy of Empire you can argue over whether it ended in 1453 or 1922.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I mean, you could go further; there’s a not-totally-bonkers argument that the Catholic Church still provides continuity today.
  - prox 5y ago
    1922? What institutions were that of the Empire?
    - TomK32 5y ago
      1922 is the year Kaiser Karl I. of Austria-Hungary died.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      The Empire of Rum [Rome], with its Kaysar [Caesar], ended in that year. The Ottoman Empire was abolished then.
  - pvg 5y ago
    Sure, but if you take an even mildly expansive definition of 'Roman' then Romans just straight up built the Hagia Sophia and the crusaders of the 4th crusade are even less Roman so maybe we're mostly longwindedly agreeing?
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      Difference of emphasis. You seem to think the "Byzantines" were in some important sense not Roman, or that there's room for argument that they weren't. I disagree. They knew themselves as Romans for the excelent reason that they were citizens of the Empire.
Bayart 5y ago
>ie height of ceiling in the main worship area That's not what a nave is. "Nave" quite literally means "boat". It refers to the elongated, cage-like, spined structure of basilical and later on Latin cross plans. Saint Sophia can't have the highest nave because it doesn't have one to begin with, it has a dome. They're very different structures.
- srcreigh 5y ago
  The word nave is in fact used for other things than Western church architecture. But, if you want to keep records for the highest naves and define them to be only Western naves, you win :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_church_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_church_archit...

devoutsalsa 5y ago

It's also beautiful. It's pretty interesting to how it's been modified from a church to a mosque, too. Typically mosques are oriented so that when you pray towards Mecca, you're also naturally oriented towards the back of the building. Since Hagia Sophia was originally a church, it's not quite oriented towards Mecca. The carpet is rotated a few degrees clockwise, so you pray a few degrees off of the natural orientation of the architecture. I had the opportunity to visit about a month ago => https://www.instagram.com/p/CTY85M-IhBu/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CTY85M-IhBu/. Many of the mosques in Turkey are just gorgeous. If you're in Turkey at some point, a day trip from Istanbul to see 4 biggest mosques in Edirne is very much worth it.

prox 5y ago
The Hagia Sophia is World Wonder. Its size resembles a small mountain, the scale on the inside is just unbelievable! The blue mosque across the park there is also a feat of engineering. Highly recommended!

pvg 5y ago

The Romans took it for a while Do you mean the conquest of the 4th crusade? Those people weren't romans, arguably nobody was by the 13th century - perhaps if anyone, the locals had a better claim to it than the conquerors.

srcreigh 5y ago
There was a thing called the Holy Roman Empire. [0] An Orthodox seminary professor remarked that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire - so you may be onto something. Although I took a history of Christianity course in uni, it was taught by a RC priest, and there were no lessons about the crusades. You did get me curious though, maybe I'll get a book about that whole situation at the time. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
- yesenadam 5y ago
  from that page: > In a famous assessment of the name, the political philosopher Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This body which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
- pvg 5y ago
  I wonder if the source of the confusion is this sort of terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire it sort of sounds like a synonym for Roman, it was one of the (curiously few!) conquests of Constantinople, etc. It just wasn't actually Roman anything.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I’m bemused how you could possibly have a third-level course on the general history of Christianity that skipped the crusades.
barry-cotter 5y ago
The Eastern Roman Empire fell in 1453 when the Seljuk Turks conquered Constantinople. The Ottoman Emperor's titles included Kaysar-i-Rum. I can't remember the dates but when the Greeks were conquering Crete their co-linguists described the conquerors as Hellenes while they were Romans. If you go by the criterion of (primary) self-identification there were Romans until the 1800s at least. By unbroken institutional continuity with the bureaucracy of Empire you can argue over whether it ended in 1453 or 1922.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I mean, you could go further; there’s a not-totally-bonkers argument that the Catholic Church still provides continuity today.
- prox 5y ago
  1922? What institutions were that of the Empire?
  - TomK32 5y ago
    1922 is the year Kaiser Karl I. of Austria-Hungary died.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    The Empire of Rum [Rome], with its Kaysar [Caesar], ended in that year. The Ottoman Empire was abolished then.
- pvg 5y ago
  Sure, but if you take an even mildly expansive definition of 'Roman' then Romans just straight up built the Hagia Sophia and the crusaders of the 4th crusade are even less Roman so maybe we're mostly longwindedly agreeing?
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Difference of emphasis. You seem to think the "Byzantines" were in some important sense not Roman, or that there's room for argument that they weren't. I disagree. They knew themselves as Romans for the excelent reason that they were citizens of the Empire.

Bayart 5y ago

>ie height of ceiling in the main worship area That's not what a nave is. "Nave" quite literally means "boat". It refers to the elongated, cage-like, spined structure of basilical and later on Latin cross plans. Saint Sophia can't have the highest nave because it doesn't have one to begin with, it has a dome. They're very different structures.

srcreigh 5y ago
The word nave is in fact used for other things than Western church architecture. But, if you want to keep records for the highest naves and define them to be only Western naves, you win :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_church_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_church_archit...