What if St. Peter's in Rome is not really Ancient?

Map of Rome from c.1330. Best viewed as a negative;



http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/vatican.html
This seems to show St.Peters as a similar structure to your picture. How this is reconciled with all the other images, I leave for later discussion.


Edited by Sidney - 09-Dec-2013 at 19:22

Sidney, from the post above "The Tabula Peutingerian, made in 1265, but thought to be the final of a long line of copies. Detail showing St.Peters."


Too me, at least it looks like bunkum!

Regards, Ron

Edited by opuslola - 09-Dec-2013 at 22:14

Originally posted by Sidney Image of St.Peters in 1588; http://www.romeartlover.it/SistoV1.html

I you see the domed structure to the left of the buildings, it is before this structure that the obelisk stood for many years. This dome also reportedly stood in the middle (the spina) of the circus.

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 10-Dec-2013 at 17:43

This =
Illustration from a 1457 edition of Euclid, described in the Vatican catalogue as a view of Rome, although nothing in the text seems to say this.
Have taken liberty to show cropped version;

Originally posted by Sidney The Tabula Peutingerian, made in 1265, but thought to be the final of a long line of copies. Detail showing St.Peters. http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/peutinger/index.html

It looks more like a barn!

OH! This is Roma! http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/peutinger/4_picenum/picenum_8_3.html

How silly it is!

Regards, Ron

Edited by opuslola - 14-Dec-2013 at 20:46

Would it be possible to see both the San Angelo and the Pantheon flanking the Basilica from this angle? Wouldn't the buildings be lined up more and obscuring each other?

Besides, the Passeto does not connect San Angelo to the Basilica, but to the Papal Palace. This Palace is a large building to one side of the Basilica. Since the building shown connects directly with San Angelo via the wall, (something the Basilica did not do), then I suggest this illustration shows the Palace. The Basilica is lower down and to one side, and is hence out of view.

If this is the case, then there is no need to question the consistent view of the Old Basilica's structure as portrayed in the images I have provided from the 14th - 16th Centuries. There is no mysterious interlude of a Gothic Basilica that appears and then disappears mid 15th Century. The 1457 picture is not showing the Basilica, but the Palace.

Hang on!!

First you tell me that we do not know how the escape wall connected to the palace because we don't know what the layout was, but then you tell me that the palace could not possibly have obscured the basilica.

Be consistent opuslola. If we don't know the layout, you cannot claim that the basilica couldn't have been obscured!

However, it is not true that we don't know the layout. Some of my images (for example the 1472 one) do show the wall/palace, and that the palace is at a higher elevation to the basilica, making it easy to think that the one could hide the other from a certain angle.

I came to this thread with no knowledge about the history of the basilica. I do not know what the consensual history of the building is (other than what you've been saying about it). But I do not see an inconsistency in the pictures in this thread (including the one you provided).

As you say yourself - we do not know what the artist [in the 1457 illustration] was trying to convey to the editor of the book. But if it was an accurate rendition of the layout (as you maintain), then the only accurate layout for San Angelo and wall as shown would require the building in the foreground not to be the basilica.

If that disappoints your perceived conclusion, then you will just have to maintain your own vision and common sense to assure yourself that you are not wrong.   

But if you can provide any supporting evidence for your interpretation of the 1457 image - such as another image, or a written description - I'd be open to persuasion. If you opened this thread looking for such supportive evidence, then the quest has failed.


P.S. - but if I find any supporting evidence, for your interpretation or mine, I will post it.


Edited by Sidney - 15-Dec-2013 at 19:00

From E Brittanica-

Old Saint Peter’s Basilica,  first basilica of St. Peter’s in Rome, a five-aisled basilican-plan church with apsed transept at the west end that was begun between 326 and 333 at the order of the Roman emperor Constantine and finished about 30 years later. The church was entered through an atrium called Paradise that enclosed a garden with fountains. From the atrium there were five doors into the body of the church. The nave was terminated by an arch with a mosaic of Constantine, accompanied by St. Peter, presenting a model of his church to Christ. 

Originally posted by red clay From E Brittanica- <P itemprop="deion" sb_id="ms__id960"><SPAN =srTitle><A id=ref8390 name=ref8390></A>Old Saint Peter’s Basilica</SPAN>,  first [COLOR=#0066cc">basilica[/COLOR"> of St. Peter’s in Rome, a five-aisled basilican-plan church with apsed transept at the west end that was begun between 326 and 333 at the order of the Roman emperor Constantine and finished about 30 years later. The church was entered through an atrium called Paradise that enclosed a garden with fountains. From the atrium there were five doors into the body of the church. The nave was terminated by an arch with a mosaic of Constantine, accompanied by St. Peter, presenting a model of his church to Christ.  This is only for starters.  Having a formal education in Art History, I was required to study church architecture from the beginning.  Not thrilling, but it was a req. course. Given a little time I can come up with more.   Just so everyone is aware, what this is mainly about is the Fomenko theory that all history was invented by monks in the 11th cent. Right up there with the Pyramids being built by Aliens.

Well Red Clay, that was some statement you just made. What's the matter? Are you afraid I might well be on to something?

As far as I know, no Fomenko work has ever touched this topic. It is my idea and possibly my discovery.

So, since you have this art background, what does it have to do with "Old St. Peter's"?

If you are so inclined, I would be very happy if you were to introduce some paintings or photographs of typical basilica constructed during the times of Constantine? I believe some of them still exist. And then point out the similarities of one of them with the one I have exposed here dating from 1457.

This very subject was made to show that some of our past may have been faked, and that there may have been at least one more building, bearing that name, and my representation is what I believe a true view of the structure. I would love to see two or three actual paintings or etchings of the structure that stood on this property before the construction of the New St. Peter's?


Hours have gone by and still no response from Red Clay! Perhaps he has nothing to say? Smile

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 17-Dec-2013 at 15:42

I still await, with one of C. Dickens phrases stuck in my mouth, that is with; "Great expectations!"   Smile!

Regards, Ron

Edited by opuslola - 17-Dec-2013 at 20:08