I am pretty sure this is a bot account that is programmed to rage bait.
They did. Here’s the interior of the Pantheon, rocking since the 2nd century AD.
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.
You should show a picture of Roman architecture then.
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
But aren’t these just made in the Roman style by French and Italy once they were no longer Rome?
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
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
Latin is the language. Always will be and no one speaks it like that. It was a ugly language
Confirmed troll
Op stultius est
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Bot
Wtf 82 lengthy comments and the account’s only 1 hr old
And they’re all nearly identical. About 3 sound like something a person could feasibly say. Pretty terrible bot, if I do say so myself.
Just scanned a few dozen. How are they nearly identical? Not seeing any agenda or shoe-horned replies that aren’t relevant. If it’s a bot, it’s damned good.
Have you ever met any person that writes like this? Any person, at all? I’m not seeing a single thing that looks like it was definitely written by a real person. That, as well as the output, pretty obvious imo.
I’m seeing a new person who’s literate and obsessive. I hammer out quite a bit in a short time and I’m not too bright.
Scanning those comments, I don’t see any nefarious agenda. They’re mostly in the lemmy vibe. Some are a bit counter, but I would expect that from a thinking human.
EDIT: I should note, I’m showing 2 hour old account ATM. How did you get a comment count? Manually?
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.
