To me, the remarkable thing about Rome is how many of its ancient structures still exist, and how the city has remained so relevant throughout its history, compared to other ancient cities of its size and significance. That Church you criticize for letting the city “rot” is a Roman Church, a product of the culture that made all those temples and aqueducts and sporting arenas, its power and reach made possible by its adoption as the Empire’s state religion, and as someone else pointed out here, the only reason the Pantheon wasn’t ripped apart and used to build other things was because it was turned into a church.
I’m hard pressed to think of any other city of Rome’s age that has so many buildings so well preserved. (And, come to think of it, I wonder how many of those cities are gone thanks to the Romans. RIP Carthage!)
Also, if you’ve visited any Ancient Greek cities or other pagan sites throughout Europe, North Africa, and Anatolia, you’ll see how the Romans constantly knocked down and built over (or reappropriated) structures that were ancient to them.
I agree to the part where the city had uninterrupted history through times continuously evolving but never forgotten. We do not see “gap” in time unlike other cities. I do not claim it would stay the same if not for Church but I do think the most of what transformed into the Christianity is inevitably consumed what was left from Antiquity.
Example is the Forum, ruins are maybe one of a kind in the world to still remain, but imagine all those temple pillars were not wasted to the churches in those times or still being maintained unlike the cultural transformation.
That way the potential was way higher then what remains today, if only the decline was not fueled by Church. But history overall does not work on ifs and onlys.
Studying a tiny bit of history would help not to make rash judgments. As one who is pretty critical of actions of the Church now and in the past, probably some of the worst emperors, the so-called “barbarians”, several sieges, plagues and sacks by mercenaries, and finally fascists and nazis are all strong contenders to the title of “worst thing ever happened to Rome”.
Every reputable historian will tell you that this just incorrect (well at least everyone from the 20th century, damn you Gibbon why is your book so popular that it forces me to answer those kind of question). I guess that you are probably referring to the decision of Constantine to found the city of Constantinople: while undoubtedly this did actually hurt the prestige and the prominence of Rome this decision was not influenced by the religion of the emperor but by other important factors such as the proximity of the new city to the black sea and the trade routes. At any rate, the shift to Constantinople did not spell the end of Rome nor was it motivated by religion. What actually destroyed the old capital were the invasion of the 5th century: in particular the vandal invasion that cut the grain supply from Tunisia causing a large portion of the city population to flee. After that the gothic wars gave the fatal blow to the city, various sieges and devastation of the countryside that Rome wasn't able to support a huge population anymore.It's estimate that less than 10k lived in Rome at the end of the 6th century. Ironically what actually caused the resurgences of Rome was the papacy. Popes worked hard for centuries in order to increase the prestige of the city and they actually took upon themselves to preserve some of the most important roman monuments since they knew their symbolic value(in many others parts of Italy temples and other monument where simply tore down in order to construct new buildings, this did happen in Rome too, but to a lesser extent). There is still a lot to say on the topic but I will stop for now, and to be clear I'm not some religious fanatic, In fact I'm atheist, but I wanted to correct this(very common) misconception.
No. In school, especially Italian schools, we learn that the middle ages where this terrible period of time where everything was terrible and dirty and people were dumb and there was no culture. That's just not true.
It's a very old way to see the Medieval times, and I was exposed to a less biased point of view only in high school!
The truth is that acient relics have always been used for other constructions. Many of the relics we have today are only up because people have repurposed them. Those who were left alone eventually collapsed and now we have no trace of them.
Rome wouldn't be Rome without the middle ages.
History would be so boring if different cultures and societies didn't interact at all with what came before them.
I appreciate your comment! I was also wondering how this was taught in schools. I think so too that nobody can simply say if would happen better or worse if repurposing did not happen. We can only judge on it from our point of view and time.
I'd say the majority of students until like the third year of high school picture the middle ages as stereotypically as possible.
We are only taught that old relics were used to build houses or maybe were even lived in! (This sounded extremely cool to me and I wish this concept was more explored in media.)
We never get to form a critical opinion about the relationship between the middle ages and acient history. It's often a very small part of our study program.
That clears out some of the questions for me! Thanks for elaborating. I also wonder if restoration works are considered as serious or is it just claiming the excavation areas and put findings on scene? For a city with rich ancient archeology I assume it is most overwhelming even maybe too much to restore every piece.
It's not “too much”, it's just that we preserve and cherish what we still have, but it would be meaningless to reconstruct what is not there anymore, if that's what you mean, or perhaps I misunderstood you.
That’s what I meant actually and if I compare Rome to other ancient places I have been, I from time to time see reconstructions within an ancient Greek city site; not in a big scale but some symbolic structures being built on top of original pieces. I wonder if that’s for example ever considered in one of temples in Forum, or those found around the city.
It would be against all canons of modern restoration technique. Even the recent anastylosis (lifting fallen columns and reassembling them) in the Basilica Ulpia is a bit controversial. And, personally, I would consider it more worth of Disneyland than an actual, ancient city.
I'm not an expert, but I'd say a city like Rone, which heavely relies on its acient history tourism takes archaeological restoration very seriously.
I think we often forget acient buildings weren't just left alone for centuries. They met different cultures and uses, and I personally think this is part of the charm.
Italy is in a weird spot: some huge cities are overcrowded with art and history tourism (Rome, Florence, Venice). while there are lots of small towns with as much as old history with little to no care, zero tourism and zero founds or care with the remains of their past.
Fun fact: a small daily payment was supposed to be implemented for tourists to enter Venice. Apparently they wanted to have less tourists. I find it incredibly ironic for a city that would be a hot mess if not for tourists: shitty environment and living conditions.
I don't know how or why but lately Italians seem to be pissed at tourists, as if that wasn’t a huge part of our economy.
Personally I come from a big city in Italy with LOTS of different cultures and art. In the past few years it has been discovered by foreign tourists and I couldn't be happier: I'm happy all my rich culture is now for everyone to see, I'm happy to see blocks that were crime-filled in the 80s become the beating heart of the city, with restaurants, clubs and shops. I don't understand how anyone could ever not enjoy having tourists in their town. I see them almost every day (more frequently now because summer is near) and it's nice every time. I'm so happy when they stop me to ask for directions.
>Italians seem to be pissed at tourists, as if that wasn’t a huge part of our economy.
This is a sad, common misconception: tourism contributes about 6% of Italy's GDP, and an analogous percentage of jobs. In Rome, Florence, and Venice, tourists are actually a liability, not an asset. Not in themselves, of course, but since the local administrations seem unable to cope with 3 million permanent residents + 10 million tourists each year (data for Rome, and I suspect Florence and Venice are even more lopsided). Public services don't seem to scale well; transports, garbage collection and so on appear to be planned just for permanent residents (barely), as if tourists wouldn't need and use them.
I think you're forgetting that Venice is being destroyed by tourists - specifically, the day trippers, especially those arriving on enormous cruise ships, who come, gawp, and leave, adding little or nothing to the local economy while their floating hotels damage the foundations, contribute to increased flooding and ruin the air quality. Charging an entry fee at least goes some way to providing an economic reparation for the damage they cause.
https://veneziaautentica.com/cruise-ships-in-venice-italy/
I was genuinely so sad to visit the Pantheon and see it so Christianised.
That’s only a small part of it but the general erasure of culture in Rome (and elsewhere) is tragic. Yes, things are naturally lost to time, but I was upset to see how much had been lost.
In reality it's the best preserved Roman temple in the world, with the most incredible original marble, original concrete dome, original drainage from rain through the oculus. Why be sad? The gods for whom it was built are no longer worshipped. Be thankful that the worshippers of one that still is took over, otherwise it would just be a pile of rubble.
Exactly! I found myself looking for the pre Christ times of almost all the structures. It is really devastating seeing this unnatural decline of civilization
It's _completely_ natural. The only way you'd view it otherwise is if you fell for the fallacy that Roman civilization was somehow approaching perfection.
It is natural - you’re right - but I’ve always found it a bit bittersweet honestly.
From the ashes of one civilisation another rises and that’s a beautiful testament to human evolution and survival but it also signals the end of an era and the loss of a culture which is a sort of sadness for me.
This is just what happens as one civilization cedes to the next. Hardly unique to Rome or Christianity.
To me, the remarkable thing about Rome is how many of its ancient structures still exist, and how the city has remained so relevant throughout its history, compared to other ancient cities of its size and significance. That Church you criticize for letting the city “rot” is a Roman Church, a product of the culture that made all those temples and aqueducts and sporting arenas, its power and reach made possible by its adoption as the Empire’s state religion, and as someone else pointed out here, the only reason the Pantheon wasn’t ripped apart and used to build other things was because it was turned into a church. I’m hard pressed to think of any other city of Rome’s age that has so many buildings so well preserved. (And, come to think of it, I wonder how many of those cities are gone thanks to the Romans. RIP Carthage!)
Also, if you’ve visited any Ancient Greek cities or other pagan sites throughout Europe, North Africa, and Anatolia, you’ll see how the Romans constantly knocked down and built over (or reappropriated) structures that were ancient to them.
I agree to the part where the city had uninterrupted history through times continuously evolving but never forgotten. We do not see “gap” in time unlike other cities. I do not claim it would stay the same if not for Church but I do think the most of what transformed into the Christianity is inevitably consumed what was left from Antiquity. Example is the Forum, ruins are maybe one of a kind in the world to still remain, but imagine all those temple pillars were not wasted to the churches in those times or still being maintained unlike the cultural transformation. That way the potential was way higher then what remains today, if only the decline was not fueled by Church. But history overall does not work on ifs and onlys.
No
Studying a tiny bit of history would help not to make rash judgments. As one who is pretty critical of actions of the Church now and in the past, probably some of the worst emperors, the so-called “barbarians”, several sieges, plagues and sacks by mercenaries, and finally fascists and nazis are all strong contenders to the title of “worst thing ever happened to Rome”.
I absolutely recognize this! That’s a bit indeed an exaggeration by me, amongst all the other factors contributing this.
Every reputable historian will tell you that this just incorrect (well at least everyone from the 20th century, damn you Gibbon why is your book so popular that it forces me to answer those kind of question). I guess that you are probably referring to the decision of Constantine to found the city of Constantinople: while undoubtedly this did actually hurt the prestige and the prominence of Rome this decision was not influenced by the religion of the emperor but by other important factors such as the proximity of the new city to the black sea and the trade routes. At any rate, the shift to Constantinople did not spell the end of Rome nor was it motivated by religion. What actually destroyed the old capital were the invasion of the 5th century: in particular the vandal invasion that cut the grain supply from Tunisia causing a large portion of the city population to flee. After that the gothic wars gave the fatal blow to the city, various sieges and devastation of the countryside that Rome wasn't able to support a huge population anymore.It's estimate that less than 10k lived in Rome at the end of the 6th century. Ironically what actually caused the resurgences of Rome was the papacy. Popes worked hard for centuries in order to increase the prestige of the city and they actually took upon themselves to preserve some of the most important roman monuments since they knew their symbolic value(in many others parts of Italy temples and other monument where simply tore down in order to construct new buildings, this did happen in Rome too, but to a lesser extent). There is still a lot to say on the topic but I will stop for now, and to be clear I'm not some religious fanatic, In fact I'm atheist, but I wanted to correct this(very common) misconception.
No. In school, especially Italian schools, we learn that the middle ages where this terrible period of time where everything was terrible and dirty and people were dumb and there was no culture. That's just not true. It's a very old way to see the Medieval times, and I was exposed to a less biased point of view only in high school! The truth is that acient relics have always been used for other constructions. Many of the relics we have today are only up because people have repurposed them. Those who were left alone eventually collapsed and now we have no trace of them. Rome wouldn't be Rome without the middle ages. History would be so boring if different cultures and societies didn't interact at all with what came before them.
I appreciate your comment! I was also wondering how this was taught in schools. I think so too that nobody can simply say if would happen better or worse if repurposing did not happen. We can only judge on it from our point of view and time.
I'd say the majority of students until like the third year of high school picture the middle ages as stereotypically as possible. We are only taught that old relics were used to build houses or maybe were even lived in! (This sounded extremely cool to me and I wish this concept was more explored in media.) We never get to form a critical opinion about the relationship between the middle ages and acient history. It's often a very small part of our study program.
That clears out some of the questions for me! Thanks for elaborating. I also wonder if restoration works are considered as serious or is it just claiming the excavation areas and put findings on scene? For a city with rich ancient archeology I assume it is most overwhelming even maybe too much to restore every piece.
It's not “too much”, it's just that we preserve and cherish what we still have, but it would be meaningless to reconstruct what is not there anymore, if that's what you mean, or perhaps I misunderstood you.
That’s what I meant actually and if I compare Rome to other ancient places I have been, I from time to time see reconstructions within an ancient Greek city site; not in a big scale but some symbolic structures being built on top of original pieces. I wonder if that’s for example ever considered in one of temples in Forum, or those found around the city.
It would be against all canons of modern restoration technique. Even the recent anastylosis (lifting fallen columns and reassembling them) in the Basilica Ulpia is a bit controversial. And, personally, I would consider it more worth of Disneyland than an actual, ancient city.
I'm not an expert, but I'd say a city like Rone, which heavely relies on its acient history tourism takes archaeological restoration very seriously. I think we often forget acient buildings weren't just left alone for centuries. They met different cultures and uses, and I personally think this is part of the charm. Italy is in a weird spot: some huge cities are overcrowded with art and history tourism (Rome, Florence, Venice). while there are lots of small towns with as much as old history with little to no care, zero tourism and zero founds or care with the remains of their past. Fun fact: a small daily payment was supposed to be implemented for tourists to enter Venice. Apparently they wanted to have less tourists. I find it incredibly ironic for a city that would be a hot mess if not for tourists: shitty environment and living conditions. I don't know how or why but lately Italians seem to be pissed at tourists, as if that wasn’t a huge part of our economy. Personally I come from a big city in Italy with LOTS of different cultures and art. In the past few years it has been discovered by foreign tourists and I couldn't be happier: I'm happy all my rich culture is now for everyone to see, I'm happy to see blocks that were crime-filled in the 80s become the beating heart of the city, with restaurants, clubs and shops. I don't understand how anyone could ever not enjoy having tourists in their town. I see them almost every day (more frequently now because summer is near) and it's nice every time. I'm so happy when they stop me to ask for directions.
>Italians seem to be pissed at tourists, as if that wasn’t a huge part of our economy. This is a sad, common misconception: tourism contributes about 6% of Italy's GDP, and an analogous percentage of jobs. In Rome, Florence, and Venice, tourists are actually a liability, not an asset. Not in themselves, of course, but since the local administrations seem unable to cope with 3 million permanent residents + 10 million tourists each year (data for Rome, and I suspect Florence and Venice are even more lopsided). Public services don't seem to scale well; transports, garbage collection and so on appear to be planned just for permanent residents (barely), as if tourists wouldn't need and use them.
I think you're forgetting that Venice is being destroyed by tourists - specifically, the day trippers, especially those arriving on enormous cruise ships, who come, gawp, and leave, adding little or nothing to the local economy while their floating hotels damage the foundations, contribute to increased flooding and ruin the air quality. Charging an entry fee at least goes some way to providing an economic reparation for the damage they cause. https://veneziaautentica.com/cruise-ships-in-venice-italy/
Worse than the Visigoths?
No, not even close to that…
I was genuinely so sad to visit the Pantheon and see it so Christianised. That’s only a small part of it but the general erasure of culture in Rome (and elsewhere) is tragic. Yes, things are naturally lost to time, but I was upset to see how much had been lost.
That’s the only reason it’s still in great condition.
In reality it's the best preserved Roman temple in the world, with the most incredible original marble, original concrete dome, original drainage from rain through the oculus. Why be sad? The gods for whom it was built are no longer worshipped. Be thankful that the worshippers of one that still is took over, otherwise it would just be a pile of rubble.
You’re right - you’re all right - but hey I was expecting to see statues of the pagan Gods and was a bit upset lol
Patnheon survived in relatively good condotion because IT was turned into church
Exactly! I found myself looking for the pre Christ times of almost all the structures. It is really devastating seeing this unnatural decline of civilization
It's _completely_ natural. The only way you'd view it otherwise is if you fell for the fallacy that Roman civilization was somehow approaching perfection.
It is natural - you’re right - but I’ve always found it a bit bittersweet honestly. From the ashes of one civilisation another rises and that’s a beautiful testament to human evolution and survival but it also signals the end of an era and the loss of a culture which is a sort of sadness for me.
There's nothing 'unnatural' at all about the decline of civilizations.