Romans vs. 19thcentury techs

[Shaihulud]

Ridiculous comparison. The gothic cathedrals absolutely blows aways anything that the Romans build, demonstrating more understanding of structural integrity than the Romans. Ancient Rome were impressive, but it cannot be compared with anything 1000 years after them.

 

[steveedster]

Of course the gothic cathedrals were more advanced than the Roman buildings of 1000 years previous, they actually looked at Roman building methods and improved upton them, for example early churches in fact stripped down roman builldings and moved the whole arch from one building to the new church as they didnt understand how to build them, after time they learned and in fact improved on them with later catherderals etc.

At the same time the Romans certainly built structures that were not bettered until the Renaissance in the 14th-16 centuries, such as large domed buildings. Renaissance itself in fact means rebirth, with reference to the rediscovery of much knowledge lost to the majority of the west since roman times.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Well, as expected, by a landslide, 19th century tech is conclusively far more advanced than Roman tech. I like that the Romans did amazing things with what they had, though.

 

[Plotinus]

steveedster, the notion that the Renaissance was all about recovering lost knowledge of the ancients, and overcoming a thousand years of boring stagnation, is itself a Renaissance myth with very little truth to it! The only real rediscovery of lost ancient knowledge was the rediscovery of many of Aristotle's writings, and that happened in the Middle Ages, not the Renaissance. Gothic architecture had nothing to do with Roman techniques. The Roman-style churches you refer to were the early Romanesque basilicas, and my point is that Gothic was a far more advanced style which developed much later.

Also, people built domes in the Middle Ages, such as the thirteenth-century one on Siena cathedral.

 

[steveedster]

Yes but that dome again an emulation of the pantheon.

The composition of the Roman concrete used in the dome remains a mystery. An unreinforced dome in these proportions made of modern concrete would hardly stand the load of its own weight, since concrete has very low tensile strength, yet the Pantheon has stood for centuries. It is known from Roman sources that their concrete is made up of a pasty hydrate lime; pozzolanic ash and lightweight pumice from a nearby volcano; and fist-sized pieces of rock. In this, it is very similar to modern concrete.[2] The high tensile strength appears to come from the way the concrete was applied in very small amounts and then was tamped down to remove excess water at all stages. This appears to have prevented the air bubbles that normally form in concrete as the material dries, thus increasing its strength enormously.

As the best-preserved example of monumental Roman architecture, the Pantheon was enormously influential on European and American architects from the Renaissance (starting with Brunelleschi's dome of the Duomo of Florence, completed in 1436) to the 19th century such as the Rotunda of Mosta. Numerous city halls, universities and public libraries echo its portico-and-dome structure. Examples of notable buildings influenced by the Pantheon include British Museum Reading Room, Thomas Jefferson's Rotunda at the University of Virginia, Low Library at Columbia University, New York, and the State Library of Victoria in Melbourne, Australia. Some changes have been made in the interior decoration, however.


also on the cathederal point i am not talking about direct copying i am talking about knowledge passed down through the centuries from roman times to when the cathederals were built. i.e. the arch itself, even though Persian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek etc used arches in underground construction the Romans were the first to use them widely above ground although it is thought that they learned it from the Etruscans.

There are many saxon churches in England where a roman arch has been lifted in one piece and put into a church later.

 

[bob bobato]

steveedster, the notion that the Renaissance was all about recovering lost knowledge of the ancients, and overcoming a thousand years of boring stagnation, is itself a Renaissance myth with very little truth to it!

If they weren't 'rebirthing' anything, why would they call it the rennaissance?
Because they thought it sounded pretty to describe an era of magicaly invented inventions?

 

[bob bobato]

To me, a gothic cathedral looks like an inside out colosseum.(I know it sounds stupid, so don't bother pointing that out!)

 

[bob bobato]

Doesn't spending 50 years building something with 'advanced technology', defeat the purpose of 'advanced technology', if you could build it in ten years with 1000's of slaves?

 

[Plotinus]

If they weren't 'rebirthing' anything, why would they call it the rennaissance?

Because they thought they were uncovering lost knowledge of antiquity, of course. It doesn't mean they actually were doing so. Most of the supposed "lost knowledge" was Hermetic philosophy, Kabbalah, and similar occult matters that had actually developed in the Middle Ages. When people name their own age it generally reflects the way they see it - or want to see it - not how it actually is. The same goes for the Enlightenment.

Because they thought it sounded pretty to describe an era of magicaly invented inventions?

Well, I'd be interested to know which inventions of the Renaissance era were actually Roman-era technologies that had been forgotten in the Middle Ages.

And please don't post several times in a row - use the Edit button!

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Doesn't spending 50 years building something with 'advanced technology', defeat the purpose of 'advanced technology', if you could build it in ten years with 1000's of slaves?

If you had the slaves, the incentive for the technology isn't really there.

Look at the US Civil War. It's one of the many reasons the US North had a massive industrial base, when the south didn't even have a real cannon factory at the very beginning of the war.

 

[bob bobato]

And please don't post several times in a row - use the Edit button!

I would have, but I didn't think the subjects had that much in common.

And about rennaissance inventions... The only rennaissance inventions I could think of are the carravelle and other naval techs, printing press and gunpowder(Or not). The rennaissance mostly had to do with science, geography, and philosophy, which did have to do with classical ideas. After all, most rennaissance science was revising or 'rebirthing' classical ideas, geography was helped by ancient roman trade routes, and philosophy was based on Plato. So even if the rennaissance wasn't 'rebirthing' their ideas, it still had a lot to do with Greace and Rome

 

[Xen]

RoMe ROXXX my SoXXXORZ

 

[bob bobato]

Who cares what Wikipedia says? Any six-year-old could go to Wikipedia right now and make it say that the Romans had space travel.

True, but Wikipedia has a bibliography proving its statements(at least that article did). This forum doesn't, so, in a way, Wikipedia has a better chance of being right than we do.

Look at the US Civil War. It's one of the many reasons the US North had a massive industrial base, when the south didn't even have a real cannon factory at the very beginning of the war.

True, but you cant build a cannon with a thousand slaves. For many things you need specialized machines, but for some things,like farming, copying,mining or building, 1000's of slaves would probably be more logical than a slower machine(that would probably be more expensive than slaves).

And about lost roman techs... there's a painting in pompeii of a bowl of fruit covered in saran wrap (even though thats impossible). I don't remember where I saw it, but if ever I see it on the web, I'll post it here.

 

[Plotinus]

And about rennaissance inventions... The only rennaissance inventions I could think of are the carravelle and other naval techs, printing press and gunpowder(Or not). The rennaissance mostly had to do with science, geography, and philosophy, which did have to do with classical ideas. After all, most rennaissance science was revising or 'rebirthing' classical ideas...

But none of the inventions you list have got anything to do with ancient technology. I don't understand why you say that most Renaissance science was based on the rediscovery of ancient ideas. On the contrary, the birth of modern science came about through the rejection of ancient ideas, such as the erroneous physics of Aristotle. People such as Paracelsus, Copernicus, and Galileo got into trouble precisely because they disagreed with ancient authorities, not because they were rehabilitating them.

geography was helped by ancient roman trade routes

No, it was helped by the boom in exploration that began in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries! Ancient geographical knowledge was not "rediscovered" in the Renaissance: on the contrary, it had been kept very much alive throughout the Middle Ages. Authors such as Isidore of Seville, Adelard of Bath, and many others had incorporated the beliefs of ancient geographers such as Pliny the Elder into their works. Once again, this is one reason why Renaissance-era explorers had to overcome some opposition to their proposed journeys: it was thought impossible to travel beyond the equator, for example, on the grounds that it would be so hot there that no-one could survive. Renaissance explorers were in the business of revising or completely overturning accepted geographical beliefs, not confirming them.

philosophy was based on Plato

Well, not really Plato himself, so much as Neoplatonism - the Renaissance sages couldn't tell the difference. But, yes, it was in philosophy above all that the Renaissance thinkers sought to recover the supposed lost wisdom of antiquity. As I pointed out, though, much of this supposed lost wisdom was based on works from late antiquity (such as the later Neoplatonists, or the Hermetic corpus) and had been developing throughout the Middle Ages. But still, philosophy isn't technology, which is what the thread is meant to be about.

So I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by your arguments!

 

[Verbose]

Well, not really Plato himself, so much as Neoplatonism - the Renaissance sages couldn't tell the difference. But, yes, it was in philosophy above all that the Renaissance thinkers sought to recover the supposed lost wisdom of antiquity. As I pointed out, though, much of this supposed lost wisdom was based on works from late antiquity (such as the later Neoplatonists, or the Hermetic corpus) and had been developing throughout the Middle Ages.

The history of the translation of the works of Plato into Latin bears this out.

This was done in Florence by the linguistic genius Marsilio Ficino at the request of Cosimo di Medici himself, who ran a form of academy of sages.

Except half way through this work, Cosimo appeared and ordered all work on Plato stopped.
They'd come across the corpus of texts known as the Hermetic, attributed to Hermes Trismeghistos (sometimes equated with Toth, the specific text is Toth teaching Horus about the nature of reality).

These things were considered waaay more important than anything Plato had to say, so the Hermes Trismeghistos translation was completed before Plato.

Ficino is also known to have spent most of his days engaged in Natural Magic, reinforcing the cosmic harmonies around him through magic practices.

He belonged to the same circle as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who was the one to translate the Kabbalah into Latin. Also in Florence, and also a work accorded tremendous status by the Renaissance scholars.

This was very much what the Renaissance was about: You try to find texts as ancient as possible in order to bring your knowledge of the world and God as close to the origin, Genesis that is, as possible.
Plato was considered to have lived later than Hermes Trismeghistos, i.e. HT knows better. The same goes for other presumed writers within the Hermetic Corpus. There's a book attributed to Moses himself for instance.

It wasn't until around the mid 17th c. where textual criticism turned up that all these texts were in fact late antiquity and had no real claim on the anciannity they derived most of their status from.

 

[Plotinus]

That's right. In fact, the notion that "more ancient"="better" was not new - it was generally accepted in antiquity too. That's why pagan anti-Christian writers argued that Plato was older than Moses, while Christian apologists argued that Moses was older than Plato; in each case they insisted that the other guy had stolen all his best ideas from their man. The Hermetic corpus itself was part of this tradition - most of it was probably written in round about the second century AD, and it was highly influenced by the Gnosticism and Middle Platonism of its day; but the teaching is presented as incredibly old. Renaissance men such as Ficino simply swallowed both the deception and the rationale behind it, and added their own spin. For example, it was in the Renaissance that the idea developed that older languages are somehow more truth-bearing than more recent ones. So Ficino, Pico, Paracelsus, and others of the time idolised Latin because it was old, Greek because it was older, and Hebrew because it was the oldest of all - hence the vogue for Jewish mysticism. This reached its apogee in the magical musings of John Dee and the development of Enochian magic. And this was the impetus behind the Renaissance and Enlightenment search for the "Adamic language", the original tongue spoken before Babel.

What really puzzles me is that anyone in the Renaissance thought the Hermetic corpus was more worth translating than Plato. It's incredibly tedious and bombastic, and in my view contains far less of mystical or spiritual value than the writings of the Neoplatonists or even of the Gnostics themselves.

 

[bob bobato]

On the contrary, the birth of modern science came about through the rejection of ancient ideas, such as the erroneous physics of Aristotle.

I know, I even said that (I used the word 'revised' instead of rejection). But you have to agree that many ancient writers on science believed in the same things we do (like the sun being the center of the universe, and atomic theory), it just that people ignored them, instead of burning them alive. The ancient world was much more tolerant than the rennaissance.

No, it was helped by the boom in exploration that began in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries!

Which started because Constantinople was captured. And before Constantinople, people restarted ancient trade. They didn't think it up on their own!

So I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by your arguments!

Don't apologize! People believe different things, and they're not always true (Im talking about myself here, too).

In fact, the notion that "more ancient"="better" was not new!

Yeah, people used to have a big infiriority complex until 100 years ago, they used to think that past peoples were better. Now people think that 50 years ago people were still living in caves ( ever hear somebody say 'back then, nobody knew how to...', even when they're talking about recent events?).

 

[Plotinus]

But you have to agree that many ancient writers on science believed in the same things we do (like the sun being the center of the universe, and atomic theory)

As far as I know only Aristarchus suggested that the earth revolves around the sun, and he was just one fairly minor figure. I don't believe that Copernicus or Galileo were influenced by him.

it just that people ignored them, instead of burning them alive. The ancient world was much more tolerant than the rennaissance.

Nobody ever got burned alive for saying the earth revolves around the sun. In fact in many ways antiquity was far less tolerant than the Renaissance. The early modern witch hunts, for example, pale by comparison with the ancient witch hunts recorded by Livy and others. It's a historical irony that modern neo-pagans generally call themselves witches and criticise the Christians for "the burning times" when in fact ancient pagans were far less tolerant to witches than Christians ever were.

Which started because Constantinople was captured. And before Constantinople, people restarted ancient trade. They didn't think it up on their own![/URL]

I don't understand what you mean. The age of exploration surely wasn't spurred simply by the capture of Constantinople. Do you mean in 1204 or in 1453?

 

[bob bobato]

Nobody ever got burned alive for saying the earth revolves around the sun. In fact in many ways antiquity was far less tolerant than the Renaissance.

Maybe they weren't burned alive, but they were punished, like Galileo, and something bad to Copernicus after his death, but I've forgotten what. But when I said the ancient world was more tolerant than the rennaissance, I meant in science and religion. If you said something scientificaly stupid, you were ignored. Religious wars didn't really exist in the ancient world, because everyone thought they worshiped the same gods, just with different names (The Egyption 'Ra' was often called 'Zeus' by the greeks, for example).

 

[Plotinus]

Galileo wasn't punished for arguing that the earth revolves around the sun; he was punished for insisting that he could prove it, defying a Papal ban on maintaining this position, and insulting the Pope. Moreover, his punishment was very light (confinement in a comfortable villa); and it was also extremely unusual. There was no general persecution of heliocentrists in the seventeenth century. In fact there was an extremely diverse range of scientific beliefs during this time, including many endorsed or tolerated by the church. Tycho Brahe's compromise doctrine that the sun revolves around the earth, but everything else revolves around the sun, was one of them. Divergent opinions existed on the nature of comets, the nature of sunspots, the shape and composition of the moon, the existence and nature of atoms and the void, and all sorts of things of this nature. One of the major reasons behind the spread of the Jesuits across the world was their desire to gather evidence to settle many of these questions (scientifically, not dogmatically).

The ancient world was certainly no more tolerant of religious diversity than the Renaissance. The Romans had a tendency to assimilate other people's religions to their own, of course, but there were strict criteria governing what people could believe: failure to venerate the traditional gods of Rome was not permissible. This is why the Christians were persecuted so often, as well as some of the mystery cults, and, in earlier times, those accused of witchcraft. In the early fourth century AD, even possession of the Christian scriptures was illegal. You can't say that's a sign of great religious tolerance!

And religious wars certainly existed in antiquity, as a browse through the gorier pages of the Old Testament will show. Just because the Romans thought everyone worshipped the same gods doesn't mean that other people agreed. The Jewish revolts against Rome in the first and second centuries AD could be regarded as, in part, religious wars. And the later wars between Christian Rome and Zoroastrian Persia were certainly, in part, religious wars - the wars of Heraclius being the prime example.