I will admit Romans had good architecture
I will admit Romans had good architecture
Comments
29-
-
You should show a picture of Roman architecture then.
-
They did. Here's the interior of the Pantheon, rocking since the 2nd century AD.
-
The bad architecture didn't survive time.
-
This is 17th century. Lots of actual Roman empire buildings were impressively sturdy and at least partially subsist, but this is nowhere near as old.
Not sure where OP is from, it might seem ancient if you're from the US, but "twice as old as the White House" is not really that old in Europe.
-
-
I am pretty sure this is a bot account that is programmed to rage bait.
-
I guess Italians are technically Romans, but this isn't an example of true Roman architecture. This was built several centuries later, long after the original Roman Empire collapsed.
This was built by the descendants of the Roman Empire, but not by who we generally consider to be Romans.
-
One of the most interesting things about Roman architecture is that they had a virtuosic command of concrete, so they could build massive structures like the Coliseum. Unfortunately, when the Roman Empire collapsed, their technical knowledge of concrete was totally lost, and it was centuries before the secrets of concrete were rediscovered, and it became a ubiquitous building material again.
The Romans were so good with concrete that they figured out a special recipe for underwater concrete (for harbors, bridges, etc.) that used the salt water to create a chemical reaction that made the underwater concrete so hard, that much of it still exists today. It was such a deep secret, that scientists didn't figure it out until the last couple of decades.
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
I’m not sure where this picture was taken, but if it’s in Rome, then this still probably built by Romans. Just not the ancient ones.
Pretty sure this is classical architecture, not roman.
image shows the grand staircase of the Royal Palace of Turin (Palazzo Reale) in Italy.
As far as I'm concerned the French and Italians are Roman. Rome ruled over all of them and all these so call different types of architecture they have are just Roman influence with a spin
The term would be Latin then.
Roman is specific to the city/kingdom/Republic/empires. Latin is the tern for the culture they had/left behind.
Edit: usually
Turin's royal palace is from the 17th century. The western Roman empire had collapsed more than a millenium prior to this. Do you consider the Eiffel Tower a Roman monument too? or maybe a Parisii Gaul one?
You can obviously say that the Roman empire is one influence over western European architecture. But "Roman architecture" is going to imply the style and techniques used by the ancient Romans, and this palace was not built with those.
You are either joking or have a massive ego.
Medieval to early modern Europe
Romanesque: An early medieval style that developed from Roman architecture, featuring round arches, thick walls, and often large, sturdy structures.
Gothic: Known for pointed arches, ribbed vaults, and flying buttresses, which allowed for taller buildings with large stained-glass windows, creating a sense of soaring height and light.
Renaissance: A revival of classical forms and principles, emphasizing symmetry, proportion, and harmony, with a renewed interest in Roman architecture.
Baroque: A dramatic and opulent style characterized by grandeur, movement, and rich ornamentation, with elaborate and sometimes theatrical designs.
Rococo: A lighter, more decorative and asymmetrical style that developed from the Baroque, using pastel colors, elaborate curves, and floral motifs.
Neoclassicism: A 18th and 19th-century revival of classical styles, reacting against the opulence of Baroque and Rococo with a return to symmetry and the grandeur of ancient Greece and Rome.
image shows the grand staircase of the Royal Palace of Turin (Palazzo Reale) in Italy.
So, Roman
But aren't these just made in the Roman style by French and Italy once they were no longer Rome?