The great churches often took centuries to build, while they were beautiful works they can not compare to the ancient engineering where roads and acquaducts went through mountains and over gorges. In Rome entire cities with sewers and plumbing were built as well harbours and other infrastructure. Only in painting did the Rennaissaance ever surpass Rome.
Of course, the aqueducts and roads were built in 72 hours, right? And the great cathedrals can just be passed off as "beautiful works" while ignoring that they are glaring testaments to the fact that the infrastructure and learning necessary to build them must have existed. And of course, the Romans had better ships, armor, weapons, and medicine than the High Middle Ages, right?
Look, I love classical civilization. I love ancient Rome and Roman history. Nothing thrilled me more than visiting the Pantheon or the Roman Forum, or the Basilica of Maxentius. But when you try to exalt Imperial Rome at the expense of the High Middle Ages, I have to beg off. The growing PC tendency to vilify/denigrate the achievements of Christian Europe are a source of increasing irritation to me. I'd compare these to any Greco-Roman temple:
Chartres Cathedral, 13th Century
San Marco, Venice, 11th Century
Cathedral of Pisa, 12-14th Century
Santa Maria Cathedral, Sienna, 13th Century
Only tangently related but I've heard it argued that modern Europe would have advanced much faster if the time and money spent on cathedral building was used for roads and education.
It should be noted that the money spent on church building did not come from school or highway funds (they really didn't exist) but from military spending. And most of that military spending -- given the Germanic/Roman legacy -- was not for defense but for offense.
We're better off with the churches.
266 posted on
05/31/2003 6:58:55 PM PDT by
ffusco
(Maecilius Fuscus, Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)