Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 174

Thread: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

  1. #141
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,727

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Sorry mate but you ve made a claim and I can't see how exactly your reasoning in your reply justifies these claims.

    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.
    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.
    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]

    No other civilization could even dream of something like the Pantheon.
    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

    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."
    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.
    Or even further East:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetavanaramaya

    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.
    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.
    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.


    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.
    Of course but this technique is not uniquilly roman as the Sassanid buildings indicate.

    The 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.
    Well a point given to the Sassanids then
    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
    Luís de Camões

  2. #142

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    As I said, the roman scale, both in quantity and quality, was unseen before it. You keep posting buildings that come AFTER the time the roman had stablished their tradition, the Sassanid palace for example was built 4 centuries AFTER the Pantheon, and the latter still bigger. When I said about not dreaming something like the Pantheon I meant before, obviously. After it, especially four centuries after it, the technology and technical knowledge had spread much more.

    About older arches/vaults in the east, I never denied their existence, but there was no solid engineering tradition behind them. Nothing that you can link to the roman one as a predecessor that the romans built upon.

    I don't want to drag this any further. So I'll just say all you need to do to convice me that everything I read about this subject, including lectures from universities that I posted some time ago, is wrong is to show a comprehensive selection of ancient buildings that were built before, say, 3rd century BC that can be seen as a predecesor of the roman concrete revolution is how those two are linked.
    Last edited by sanbourne; July 02, 2014 at 09:38 PM.
    "We will bring Rome to them not because of the strength of our legions, but because we are right"

    "The Romans had left marble and stone, brick and glory."

  3. #143
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by sanbourne View Post
    ...

    About older arches/vaults in the east, I never denied their existence, but there was no solid engineering tradition behind them. Nothing that you can link to the roman one as a predecessor that the romans built upon.

    I don't want to drag this any further....
    Fair enough. I disagree the Roman tradition exists in isolation, and I do think isolated examples have a bearing if they occur in proximity as the Hellenistic examples in Sicily do. It comes down to how you define "Roman" and whether you think cultures have discrete coterminous intellectual boundaries.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  4. #144
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,727

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by sanbourne View Post
    As I said, the roman scale, both in quantity and quality, was unseen before it.
    I have already agreed to that in case you didn't notice.
    You keep posting buildings that come AFTER the time the roman had stablished their tradition, the Sassanid palace for example was built 4 centuries AFTER the Pantheon, and the latter still bigger.
    Hmm it sees you haven't read my post properly.I have posted 2 buildings built in early 3d century AD that is some years after the Pantheon and therefore they are contemporary with the imperial style ,they are in similar scale with Pantheon and a building that surpasses any arch built by Romans.I don't think it helps your argument to continue ignoring that other great contemporary civilizations were able to dream big in architecture using concrete.I won't argue about the cultural significance of the Pantheon as a monument though nor I am trying to belittle it.Pantheon is a Roman masterpiece and a pinnacle in western architectural tradition what I am arguing here is that your aphorism is a bold exaggeration as demonstrated by the examples of the Sassanian buildings.Other great civilizations and empires were able to dream constructions like that either that would be Ptolemaic Egypt or Sassanids.The Sassanian castle-royal hall Ardashir Pāpakān and the palace in Ctesiphon are merely examples even without the excellent pozzolanic Roman concrete which as it seems was overall structurally superior to the Sassanian mixtures (that's my personal impression at least). Also bear in mind that the Thermae of Caracalla, the greatest Roman concrete project was built during the early 3d cent as well.
    When I said about not dreaming something like the Pantheon I meant before, obviously. After it, especially four centuries after it, the technology and technical knowledge had spread much more.
    Well apparently concrete domes would have been impossible to made without the acquired technology but the arches, domes and vaults were part of the Eastern and Hellenistic architectural tradition as well-heck some of them were introduced in Roman architecture
    Despite that you have the concept of great domes even without the concrete technology as Atreus treasure is an example of a stone built bronze age dome of great proportions.

    It is formed of a semi-subterranean room of circular plan, with a corbel arch covering that is ogival in section. With an interior height of 13.5m and a diameter of 14.5m,[3] it was the tallest and widest dome in the world for over a thousand years until construction of the Temple of Hermes in Baiae and the Pantheon in Rome. Great care was taken in the positioning of the enormous stones, to guarantee the vault's stability over time in bearing the force of compression from its own weight. This obtained a perfectly smoothed internal surface, onto which could be placed gold, silver and bronze decoration.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_of_Atreus

    About older arches/vaults in the east, I never denied their existence, but there was no solid engineering tradition behind them. Nothing that you can link to the roman one as a predecessor that the romans built upon.I don't want to drag this any further. So I'll just say all you need to do to convice me that everything I read about this subject, including lectures from universities that I posted some time ago, is wrong is to show a comprehensive selection of ancient buildings that were built before, say, 3rd century BC that can be seen as a predecesor of the roman concrete revolution is how those two are linked.
    As it is argued by F Winter in his book in hellenistic architecture both arch and vault were known to Greeks since 5th cent BC and according to A Orlandos it was probably introduced by the M Graecia Greeks to the rest of Greece and the Italian peninsula
    The same goes with the concrete. It wasn't a Roman invention yet the pozzolanic Roman concrete , a gift of the Campanians initially, laid the foundations of the Roman concrete evolution especially during the Imperial era.

    Eloquently put here:

    Roman architecture, even that of the Empire at its most advanced, was derived from Hellenistic prototypes, yet in Hellenic and Hellenistic architecture the column of an Order was fully exploited in design, while in Roman work was often reduced in status, becoming engaged or used decoratively, as in the pseudo-peripteral Temples of Fortuna Virilis, Rome (C2 bc or probably c.40), and the Maison Carrée, Nîmes, France (16 bc), both of which are set on high podia, have deep porticoes based on the prostyle Etruscan type, but with the rest of the surrounding colonnade or peristyle usual in a Greek temple engaged with the cella walls. From the Greeks, too, came the Orders, but developed as distinctive Roman types of Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian.
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ro...hitecture.aspx
    @Cyclops
    You ve made a very interesting question about what is "Roman" essentially what differients "Roman" than to Hellenistic or Italic etc.
    To my understanding that would be the combination of already existing basic concepts, patterns, styles along with innovations according to Roman taste and practical purposes.That goes hand in hand with the evolution of new styles that do not have any predecessor in classical architecture like Diocletian's palace for example which demonstrate a more clear "Roman" style than previous projects who were related in various degrees with the Greek/Hellenistic, Etruscan or Italic tradition.
    Last edited by neoptolemos; July 03, 2014 at 03:24 PM.
    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
    Luís de Camões

  5. #145
    ❋ Flavius Belisarius ❋'s Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Paris & Istanbul
    Posts
    407

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    I read 8 pages and I found this discussion fascinating. But I am going to try to get us back on topic, since it gets a bit off track & complicated if we start saying which civilization build ‘this or this’ for the first time.

    Melchior Lorichs drew the panorama of Constantinople (titled "Byzantium sive Constantinopolis") in 1559, one century after the fall of the city and the Roman Empire (you can zoom to see the details).
    https://plus.google.com/101885177289...77289635488458

    I'm a french living in Istanbul and it's get a bit emotional when I see how this city used to be a long time ago. Constantinople really deserved the name of New/Second Rome at that time (at least)
    The description Last of the Romans (Ultimus Romanorum) has historically been given to any man thought to embody the values of Ancient Roman civilization —values which, by implication, became extinct on his death. It has been used to describe a number of individuals.
    Flavius Belisarius (505?–565), one of the greatest generals of the Byzantine Empire and one of the most acclaimed generals in history. He was also the only Byzantine general to be granted a Roman Triumph.

  6. #146

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Fair enough. I disagree the Roman tradition exists in isolation, and I do think isolated examples have a bearing if they occur in proximity as the Hellenistic examples in Sicily do. It comes down to how you define "Roman" and whether you think cultures have discrete coterminous intellectual boundaries.
    What examples in Sicily? Also I would ask that you post the predecesors of the persians buildings you posted earlier. Where are their origin? Doing that with the roman concrete buildings is easy, and they are traced back to Rome.
    "We will bring Rome to them not because of the strength of our legions, but because we are right"

    "The Romans had left marble and stone, brick and glory."

  7. #147
    Hetman Khmelnytsky's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Lviv, Ukraine / Mountain View, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    These illustrations are pretty amazing, it's very indescribable, and as they say, a picture says a thousand words.

  8. #148

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Shame that so little is left of Constantinople. Why is so little left of Constantinople, Smyrna, Nicomedia and Nicaea?

  9. #149
    Arto's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,297
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Isn't there a First Person game project based on 13th century Constantinople
    Knowledge is a deadly friend, if no one sets the rules. The fate of all mankind I see, is in the hands of fools - King Crimson's Epitaph.
    תחי מדינת ישראל

  10. #150
    Rinan's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germania Inferior
    Posts
    822

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiochus Seleukos View Post
    Shame that so little is left of Constantinople. Why is so little left of Constantinople, Smyrna, Nicomedia and Nicaea?
    Sheer "bad luck", I suppose. The last centuries were quite hard for the Byzantines. I think I read somewhere that once the Ottomans conquered it in 1453, there were only a few ten thousand people living there (as opposed to around half a million in its hey day). The Ottoman sultans moved their capital to Constantinople and started a repopulation and rebuilding program. I imagine they must've built whole new neighbourhoods instead of the old ruins. Also, we can go further back in time: in 1204, the crusaders thoroughly sacked the place.

    Archaeologically speaking there is a lot to be found beneath modern-day Istanbul though, by the way. It's a nightmare to any modern Turkish real-estate company

    Quote Originally Posted by Arto
    Isn't there a First Person game project based on 13th century Constantinople
    If there is, I want it lol.

  11. #151
    Arto's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,297
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    I'm sorry, what I meant was a 3D reconstruction: byzantium1200.com
    Knowledge is a deadly friend, if no one sets the rules. The fate of all mankind I see, is in the hands of fools - King Crimson's Epitaph.
    תחי מדינת ישראל

  12. #152

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Rinan View Post
    Sheer "bad luck", I suppose. The last centuries were quite hard for the Byzantines. I think I read somewhere that once the Ottomans conquered it in 1453, there were only a few ten thousand people living there (as opposed to around half a million in its hey day). The Ottoman sultans moved their capital to Constantinople and started a repopulation and rebuilding program. I imagine they must've built whole new neighbourhoods instead of the old ruins. Also, we can go further back in time: in 1204, the crusaders thoroughly sacked the place.

    Archaeologically speaking there is a lot to be found beneath modern-day Istanbul though, by the way. It's a nightmare to any modern Turkish real-estate company


    If there is, I want it lol.
    On such a note, I recently read that: https://mybyzantine.wordpress.com/20...to-make-hotel/

    Turkish real-estate developers should just leave the entire small peninsula where Sultanahmet, Fatih and the others are and the site should just be dedicated to historical excavation.

    Do you know what are the best ruins left, and what can possibly be discovered through excavation in Istanbul? Hopefully they find more stuff... The biggest contributors to destruction were the modern Turks post 1920 though, I think.

    Also, do you know about Nicaea and Smyrna? Nothing left here from Byzantine times.

  13. #153
    Rinan's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germania Inferior
    Posts
    822

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    "What is left" of the Byzantine era is an interesting, but complicated question. First of all, what actually *was there* to be left behind? For example, a vast brick Roman city will leave more traces behind then a small wooden fort. But more importantly, archaeologists speak of "formation processes" determining what survives the countless ages. Anything from the chemical make-up of the soil, to earthquakes, war or building projects can alter or destroy archaeological heritage.

    A third problem is the amount of interest in Byzantine history. Most of the Turks I've met don't value their Byzantine past nearly as much as they should. Meanwhile, most western people are obsessed by anything Ancient Greece. A lot of money goes to excavating and preserving classical heritage. Byzantine archaeology, not nearly as much. I hope this is going to change in the future, as the public slowly starts to gain more interest in Byzantium.

    For Istanbul, I don't really know for sure at all. But judging from stuff like the cisterns, that link of yours and comparable situations in e.g. Rome, I'd say there's a fair chance. Though most of it will not nearly be as spectacular as you'd hope. Bits of pottery, ground traces, etc.

    As for the Anatolian cities, I think for example Ephesos shows us what is possible. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanne..._%28Ephesos%29
    (The medieval town nucleated around the Hagios Theologos)

    For Smyrna, one archaeologist says:
    Smyrna, for example, was almost certainly the most important of the twenty cities for most of the Byzantine period; it occupied a strategic location [...] and both the sources and the remains give tantalising hints of its size and prosperity, but the total picture has only the vaguest outline because of the lack of excavation. Such a lack, of course, reflects the present importance of the city, which [...] is still a substantial metropolis. The modern city occupies the same area as that of the ancient and Byzantine, so that the site presents few opportunities for excavation
    (source: Clive Foss, American Journal of Archaeology 84.4 (1977) pp. 469-486; Accesable on Jstor for free if you make an account)

    Also, a lot of Byzantine heritage actually survives, but just doesn't get as much attention as it should. My professor of Ancient Greek, for example, recently said: "Don't visit Sparta, there's not much to see there", blatantly ignoring it's home to something as phenomenal as Mystras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystras (I wish I had the money to go here, lol )

    Or for example, Ohrid in Macedonia, has a lot of churches built under the Bulgar Empire but clearly in Byzantine style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_..._Sophia,_Ohrid and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Panteleimon,_Ohrid

  14. #154
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    I personally thought Istanbul was pretty varied in what historical things you could find. Hagia Sophia and the Basilica Cistern of course, but there's also Hagia Eirene, the Chora monastery, and a lot of churches are still preserved thanks to the fact that they became mosques. I think it has a very nice mix of Byzantine and Ottoman buildings, and sure not everything from the Byzantine period survives but I think it's still substantial and the fact that a lot of the buildings were utilized means that they're in better situation than say, buildings from classical Rome.

  15. #155
    Aram Kurdo's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Greater Kurdistan
    Posts
    220

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Thanks alot Caesar95 indeed aazing.

    it was a pity this wonderful civilization with its magnificent foundation was ruined and somehow stolen by Turks. it would be very peaceful and great civilized city if would remained in hands of Romans and Greeks,, and pity again that they could not resist against these hordes or it would be brilliant to have a modern Romano Greek Nation/Country in the modern times.


    pity again the Catholic crusaders could not be united with Orthodoxes, against the strange hordes wanted to eliminate a great civilization, though they indirectly helped their so called "non christian hordes of steppes" to destroy this beautiful civilization in south east Europe and west Asia ...
    Last edited by Aram Kurdo; February 18, 2015 at 06:22 AM.
    Racists and Fascists Call You Terrorists, Humanity Calls You "FREEDOM FIGHTER"
    YPJ (Women protection Units) Warriors in Rojava (Kurdistan Of Syria)




  16. #156
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavroforos View Post
    The Crusaders ruined Constantinople more than the Ottomans did.
    The Crusaders sacked it and stole a bunch of artwork, whereas the Ottomans sacked it and added a lot of art and architecture, like building minarets at the Hagia Sophia.
    Last edited by Aikanár; February 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM. Reason: continuity

  17. #157
    Aram Kurdo's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Greater Kurdistan
    Posts
    220

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavroforos View Post
    The Crusaders ruined Constantinople more than the Ottomans did.
    dont say "More". its perfectly wrong word for the other side only to criticize Crusaders.
    Last edited by Aikanár; February 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM. Reason: continuity
    Racists and Fascists Call You Terrorists, Humanity Calls You "FREEDOM FIGHTER"
    YPJ (Women protection Units) Warriors in Rojava (Kurdistan Of Syria)




  18. #158
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    What did the Ottomans do? They took a city that had deteriorated to point of irrelevance with a tiny population and made it one of the most important cities in the world again. When the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, it was already one of the most important cities in the world.

  19. #159
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavroforos View Post
    What did the Ottomans do? They took a city that had deteriorated to point of irrelevance with a tiny population and made it one of the most important cities in the world again. When the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, it was already one of the most important cities in the world.
    So, countdown until the municipality of Venice (not even the modern nation-state of Italy) issues a belated apology to modern-day Istanbul? The mindset of the Crusaders at first was that they were simply aligned with one royal faction of Byzantines against another, but with the establishment of the Latin Empire they clearly went wild with the idea of sticking it to the Byzantines in general, converting the Orthodox Hagia Sophia into a Roman Catholic cathedral for decades, for instance.

  20. #160
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    So, countdown until the municipality of Venice (not even the modern nation-state of Italy) issues a belated apology to modern-day Istanbul? The mindset of the Crusaders at first was that they were simply aligned with one royal faction of Byzantines against another, but with the establishment of the Latin Empire they clearly went wild with the idea of sticking it to the Byzantines in general, converting the Orthodox Hagia Sophia into a Roman Catholic cathedral for decades, for instance.
    Well, the Pope apologized at some point in the 20th Century, so that's good enough.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •