Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
The Hidden Face
Chieftain
Ustad-i Azam
Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1379
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Hagia Sofia-The jewel of the Byzantine Empire Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 17:30 |
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 15:15 |
Hagia Sofia is a wonderful building.
The architecture of Turkish mosques was inspired from it.
It think it should remain as a museum:
- Muslims have more than enough mosques.
- Orthodox people of Istanbul are not numerous enough.
Edited by Barış
|
|
Jazz
Baron
Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 15:04 |
Originally posted by Makros
What if they returned Hagia Sophia over to the greek
orthodox patriarch, as a sign of peace and goodwill. anyways, they
already have a better looking mosque next door. wouldn't that be
cool.
Originally posted by Mortaza
isnt this much to want? We still dont trust
greek
orthodox patriarch much, and you wish a sign of peace and
goodwill(Priced much) |
Ok, at the risk of starting something here - I would like you (Mortaza
or any other Turk here) to expand on this. Not being either Greek
or Turkish, I am curious what is the source of this mistrust, and (more
importantly) if it is current. |
|
|
|
Jazz
Baron
Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 14:50 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
....Interestingly with that clearer picture of
the Emperor (not the one of John II Comnenus and his wife) there
is a story behind its origins. The woman in the picture below him is
Empress Zoe, the legitimate reigning monarch. She first married the man
who became known as Romanus III and the picture was originally of him.
When Romanus died, Zoe remarried the man who became Michael IV and so
Michael's face was painted over that of Romanus. When Michael died and
Zoe married Constantine IX, Constantine's face in turn replaced
Michael's. |
Luckily for Constantine IX, Zoe died before he did, so his face is preserved for all of us to see today.
|
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 21:56 |
Originally posted by Artaxiad
In my opinion, Romans ceased to be Romans when they accepted Christianity. Christianity drastically changed the Roman Way. |
The Romans swapped a religion they adopted from the Greeks to a religion they adopted from the Judaeans. I don't see how they cease to be Romans because of that.
|
|
Artaxiad
Baron
Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 21:42 |
In my opinion, Romans ceased to be Romans when they accepted Christianity. Christianity drastically changed the Roman Way.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 21:31 |
Really it was a process of gradual tranformation, though some aspects Rome and Byzantium always held in common such as their theological and religious ideologies. I think a transforming period rather than a precise date is the best way to view it, with the period 602-642 being the period that an attempt at regaining the full heritage of the Roman Empire failed and the Empire was subsequently reduced to being a medieval Greek state more or less confined to the Balkans, Anatolia and the East Mediterannean.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 16:07 |
Yes the empire was divided between, Constantine who got Britannia Gaul and Hispania, Constans who got Italy Africa and the Balkans/Danube and Constantius who got Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt etc. It didnt last long though I think within 2 years, Constantine attempted to seize Constans' territory but was defeated and Constans was later killed by a usurper, leaving Constantius to decide on a western Emperor.
The point when the Roman empire ceased being Roman is widely open to debate.
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Phallanx
Chieftain
Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 15:20 |
Wasn't it after the death of Constantine the Great
(sometime around 330) that the empire was divided in 3 and ruled by his
sons Constantine II, Flavius Julius Constantius and Flavius Julius Constans that took charge of West Middle and East 'districts/divisions'?
|
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 14:58 |
Its been much argued when the Roman empire became the Byzantine empire, the Oxford history of Byzantium suggests two periods.
The 4th century most probably 395 when the Roman empire was last ruled by a single Emperor.
OR
Between 575 and 650, applying to not long after Justinian the greats death to just after Heraclius' death.
Its really a matter of opinion because its impossible to pinpoint when Rome became Byzantium, however i'll make this compromise, Hagia Sophia was built by a Roman Emperor ruling over an ever increasing Greek empire, so is a combination of both civilisations.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Phallanx
Chieftain
Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 14:24 |
Well the 'separation' between the East and West empires had taken place
several years before. Actually since 395, some mention even earlier
during Diocletian's reign. Anyway, the empire was split into West
and East. But it definitely did slpit during the first schism due to
the Arianism dispuit which was between 340-395.
So even if Justinian considered himself a Roman, Agia Sophia was
definitely built for the already separated due to the schism Eastern
Empire and as a symbol of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
|
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 13:53 |
Originally posted by Phallanx
Roman building, how exactly did you come up with this??? While there is a similarity between Roman and Byzantine architecture and Byzantine is actually a continuation of Roman 'style' they are quite different and Agia Sophia is one of the best examples to note the difference in architectural styles..
|
Hagia Sophia was built by Justinian the great though, who is considered (and certainly considered himself a Roman Emperor) the last true Roman Emperor of the Roman empire therefore it is a Roman building, especially since the original church of holy wisdom was built by Constantine another Roman Emperor.
Architecturally there may be a difference, but the building was built by a Roman emperor in the Roman empire, so must be considered Roman, anything built during and after Heraclius' reign when Greek was officially made the language of the empire I think can be considered proper Byzantine IMO.
Edited by Heraclius
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Phallanx
Chieftain
Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 10:23 |
Originally posted by Oguzoglu
I am happy to agree on some topic with Greeks. Agia Sofia is a
beautiful Roman building, like all other Byzanthine and
Ottoman monuments. |
Roman building, how exactly did you come up with this???
While there is a similarity between Roman and Byzantine architecture
and Byzantine is actually a continuation of Roman 'style' they
are quite different and Agia Sophia is one of the best examples to note
the difference in architectural styles..
|
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
|
|
kotumeyil
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1494
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 10:00 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Well the turks whitewashed or plastered over the walls to hide the pictures so as to make it acceptable as a mosque. Good on them for not outright destroying it, they have allowed a beautiful piece of history to remain.
What was probably just as damaging as the iconoclastic damage was the damage wrought during the Fourth Crusade. The crusders looted anything and everything, even going so far as to tear up the floor of the Hagia Sophia. I doubt many of the precious mosaics and decorations survived their depredations.
Interestingly with that clearer picture of the Emperor (not the one of John II Comnenus and his wife) there is a story behind its origins. The woman in the picture below him is Empress Zoe, the legitimate reigning monarch. She first married the man who became known as Romanus III and the picture was originally of him. When Romanus died, Zoe remarried the man who became Michael IV and so Michael's face was painted over that of Romanus. When Michael died and Zoe married Constantine IX, Constantine's face in turn replaced Michael's.
|
There is a word for this in Turkish: "Ne oldum dememeli, ne olacam demeli" - Don't say "what am I?" but say "what will I be?" meaning that "you should not be proud of your current situation, but think of your future". Michael faced the end that was faced by Romanus.
|
[IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg">
|
|
kotumeyil
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1494
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 09:54 |
I don't want. It's OK now. Returning it into a temple creates another conflict. Maybe it would be fine to make it a fine-arts school, but no temple...
Edited by kotumeyil
|
[IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg">
|
|
Mortaza
Tsar
Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 07:57 |
No comment
We want to use it as a mosque.I am realy curious If we can use as both.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 07:23 |
well, since you have no use for it. other than a museum.
|
|
Mortaza
Tsar
Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 05:00 |
isnt this much to want? We still dont trust greek orthodox patriarch much, and you wish a sign of peace and goodwill(Priced much)
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 04:48 |
What if they returned Hagia Sophia over to the greek orthodox patriarch, as a sign of peace and goodwill. anyways, they already have a better looking mosque next door. wouldn't that be cool.
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 03:34 |
Originally posted by azimuth
still how could they converted it into a mosque? Mosque's main structure must be in the Direction of Makka.
i think if it was Arabs who got their 1st they would've destroyed it and rebuilt a Mosque on it. that if they wanted to make it Mosque
|
A direction of praying differs from the main centerline of the building. In this picture you can see the asimetry of the qibla(?) and the building.
|
|