3 ms·

> Besides the theaters and aqueducts there are basically none which were not later turned into churches I am from Rome, live in Rome, in front of the Forum of

> Besides the theaters and aqueducts there are basically none which were not later turned into churches I am from Rome, live in Rome, in front of the Forum of Augustus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_of_Augustus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_of_Augustus), there's a large number of Roman buildings that never became churches. Trust me, the Domus Aurea was never a church, Villa Adriana has never been a church,they are both UNESCO's World Heritage Sites. I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that romans built several Basilica (for example the Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine), but for romans basilica meant a different thing: from the Greek word "stoà basileiós" the term basilica refers to the function of a building as that of a meeting hall. In ancient Rome, basilicas were the site for legal matters to be carried out and a place for business transactions. Most of them never became religious buildings, they remained public places to meet other people. > most ancient buildings did not just simply collapse due to age but were destroyed by people who wanted to reuse their building material. that happened to roman buildings as well, Colosseum is maybe a third of what originally it was made of, but it's still standing and survived a massive earthquake in 1349 that opened a huge crack in it, but didn't destroy it. Because of its build quality.

qwytw 5y ago
Yes there are plenty of relatively well preserved Roman ruins, neither Hadrian's Villa or Domus Aurea had survived intact. I'm not denying that Roman construction techniques were advanced, but it's not like we have much to compare them against. Sure, there aren't as many well preserved Etruscan or Greek ruins in Italy, but they preceded the Romans, had way less resources and not as advanced technology. And the same happened to the Romans who were eventually surpassed by medieval and renaissance Europeans. There magnitudes more surviving medieval buildings compared to Roman buildings, just like there are magnitudes (I would assume) more Roman ones compared ones built by Etruscans/etc. But that does not mean that Roman architecture was somehow inherently superior. For example had the Carthaginians or some Greek state conquered the mediterranean instead of the Romans (obviously that was unlikely due to various non architecture related reasons) and had the resources to build as much as the Romans did would less of their buildings have survived or would they have been of worse quality everything else staying equal?
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > and had the resources to build as much as the Romans did would less of their buildings have survived or would they have been of worse quality everything else staying equal? Thanks for the question. It would be a very long discussion to have in details, starting from the fact that even in ancient Rome there was some culture of preservation, like the restoration of 82 temples in the programs of Augustus (see “Preservation Practices in Ancient and Medieval Rome”), but it wasn't until 15th century that a real program of preservation and protection of old buildings was created by the papacy. Rome was, more than any other city of its times, subject to invasions and destruction of its ancient monuments, used as construction material for new buildings and churches. The need for churches was actually more a detriment than a a blessing. The capital was moved to Constantinople more than a century before the sack of Rome and the fall of the western Roman empire, its monuments, its marbles, its travertine, its bricks, have been for more than a millennium up for grabs, by many conquerors. In Greek cities, for example, there were no monuments to steal from, because they had been ruins for centuries already, Rome almost disappeared during the middle ages and, but the need for materials and the sacks never stopped, making new buildings, every time larger and richer, was the new normal, it was probably the most prolific period in history. The fact that so many Roman buildings survived despite most of the original material was removed and used somewhere else, it's kinda miraculous. Take for example two great historical figures: Alexander the great and Genghis Khan, their empires were immense, some of the largest in history, but buildings of their era are virtually non existent. It wasn't their strongest trait, they were not builders. Compare them to the Mesopotamians or the Egyptians and it becomes easier to see the difference. Greeks influenced a lot both Etruscan and Romans, but it was more of a style. Advanced construction techniques in Etruscan region were brought directly by Greek natives, but only the most privileged classes built proper houses, the rest of the population was living in villages made by tents or wooden shelters. That's why very few of them survived.

qwytw 5y ago

Yes there are plenty of relatively well preserved Roman ruins, neither Hadrian's Villa or Domus Aurea had survived intact. I'm not denying that Roman construction techniques were advanced, but it's not like we have much to compare them against. Sure, there aren't as many well preserved Etruscan or Greek ruins in Italy, but they preceded the Romans, had way less resources and not as advanced technology. And the same happened to the Romans who were eventually surpassed by medieval and renaissance Europeans. There magnitudes more surviving medieval buildings compared to Roman buildings, just like there are magnitudes (I would assume) more Roman ones compared ones built by Etruscans/etc. But that does not mean that Roman architecture was somehow inherently superior. For example had the Carthaginians or some Greek state conquered the mediterranean instead of the Romans (obviously that was unlikely due to various non architecture related reasons) and had the resources to build as much as the Romans did would less of their buildings have survived or would they have been of worse quality everything else staying equal?

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> and had the resources to build as much as the Romans did would less of their buildings have survived or would they have been of worse quality everything else staying equal? Thanks for the question. It would be a very long discussion to have in details, starting from the fact that even in ancient Rome there was some culture of preservation, like the restoration of 82 temples in the programs of Augustus (see “Preservation Practices in Ancient and Medieval Rome”), but it wasn't until 15th century that a real program of preservation and protection of old buildings was created by the papacy. Rome was, more than any other city of its times, subject to invasions and destruction of its ancient monuments, used as construction material for new buildings and churches. The need for churches was actually more a detriment than a a blessing. The capital was moved to Constantinople more than a century before the sack of Rome and the fall of the western Roman empire, its monuments, its marbles, its travertine, its bricks, have been for more than a millennium up for grabs, by many conquerors. In Greek cities, for example, there were no monuments to steal from, because they had been ruins for centuries already, Rome almost disappeared during the middle ages and, but the need for materials and the sacks never stopped, making new buildings, every time larger and richer, was the new normal, it was probably the most prolific period in history. The fact that so many Roman buildings survived despite most of the original material was removed and used somewhere else, it's kinda miraculous. Take for example two great historical figures: Alexander the great and Genghis Khan, their empires were immense, some of the largest in history, but buildings of their era are virtually non existent. It wasn't their strongest trait, they were not builders. Compare them to the Mesopotamians or the Egyptians and it becomes easier to see the difference. Greeks influenced a lot both Etruscan and Romans, but it was more of a style. Advanced construction techniques in Etruscan region were brought directly by Greek natives, but only the most privileged classes built proper houses, the rest of the population was living in villages made by tents or wooden shelters. That's why very few of them survived.