Remaining buildings: Would a Roman be offended?

[Leeham991]

This is something I ask myself every time I see a Roman town or a Roman building being treated like a "Don't touch this! Leave it!" case instead of restoring it and using it.

If a Roman was brought here in a time machine, do you think they'd be offended by the state we got out of our way to keep the buildings in?

Surely if a Roman came to this time they would rejoice at the buildings being reenforced with modern materials, fitted with modern technology and used for modern sports. I think I'd definitely be offended if I went forward 2000 years to find that the building I helped make had been allowed to degrade to a certain point and then only maintained at a certain level of crappiness rather than restored.

Thoughts?

[saxdude]

Offended may be the wrong word, dissapointed might be bequitecttter, seeing as they generally tried to fix or make better (except in the few cases were they were just pissed)


Maybe the roman arquitect (excluding the amazement of modern arquitecture) would be dissapointed that we didnt build upon it and that Rome (the original) has decayed to such a state and not restored.

[Stark of Winterfell]

I think you're right-it was the Roman way to take old structures and improve them with their technology (such as the Greek theater at Epidaurus).

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Most of the statuary today would be predictably unrecognizable by them, and they would surely despise it the same way we despise an old and rusty car abandoned on a dump.

[saxdude]

Maybe, but we all love an old but fixed and tuned mustang shelby do we not?

[Sphere]

It would be great if they restored the Coliseum and held sporting events there. That would be an amazing atmosphere. It will never happen but it is an interesting thought none the less.

On a brighter note though, the Pantheon is still intact with most of its original interior marble thanks to the protection of the Church. It still is simply stunning, both aesthetically but even more so from an engineering perspective when you consider it is still the largest unreinforced concrete dome ever built.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[motiv-8]

Did the Romans not cannibalized their own buildings for new construction?

[Phier]

These are the life stages of a building.

New
Functional
Old
Needs to be replaced
Historical

If you don't get rid of a building at stage 4, then it goes to 5 and you can't knock it down anymore.

Just think if YOU took a time machine to the future and some of todays buildings were in preserved ruins.

Personally it wouldn't bother me a bit, and I think they might be flattered their buildings lasted that long, just like they used to think of the Egyptian ruins.

[SigniferOne]

Did the Romans not cannibalized their own buildings for new construction?

In Late Empire, 4th century and later, it happened a very few times.

[frank_garrett]

i heard that now they gonna rebuild the coloseum in italy for concerts and stuff like that. in my country we never touched the arena in ceaseria. still standing since the 1 century and used for concerts and stuff like that.

[conon394]

This is something I ask myself every time I see a Roman town or a Roman building being treated like a "Don't touch this! Leave it!" case instead of restoring it and using it.

However a modern restoration would necessarily destroy the value of a place as a historic piece of evidence. Sure he would not mostly complain that the Football at Stadio Olimpico is sort of sissy - hardly anyone dies ever.

If a Roman was brought here in a time machine, do you think they'd be offended by the state we got out of our way to keep the buildings in?

All in all it think it would likely be satisfying to know people still liked the stuff you built and tried to save what has survived all those years and take care of it with respect for how it originally looked. I mean A roman can hardly be that disappointed - his Empire's been dead for over thousand years (more so in the West as a Latin speaking polity) - and people still use Latin alphabets, speak Latin descended languages all over Europe, have Senates, and Republics, make public building with obvious roman design references, make up Latin gibberish science names for animals.

[Biggreenfellow]

I think they should either be restored, using the same materials and in the exact same style as they were built, or preserved. I wouldn't want them to 'restore' the Colosseum with materials that don't mesh with the original, adding new additions to it, putting modern benches in it etc etc.

As far as the time travelling Roman is concerned, I think he would find other things far more troubeling then the state of ancient buildings. The Romans were an innovative bunch, they would probably knock down the Colosseum and build something new instead of clinging to something old fashioned and out of date. We're not preserving the buildings for the Romans, we're preserving them for ourselves, so we can catch a glimpse of how life was in those days gone by.

[DAVIDE]

Would a Roman be offended seeing Florentia becoming the pearl of Reinaissance 1000 years later? Civilizations exactly as towns evolve through the years. And Romans knew that already at the time. Nothing is forever

i heard that now they gonna rebuild the coloseum in italy for concerts and stuff like that. in my country we never touched the arena in ceaseria. still standing since the 1 century and used for concerts and stuff like that.

Nobody wants to rebuild it