What if St. Peter's in Rome is not really Ancient?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34162
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 03:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What if St. Peter's in Rome is not really Ancient?
Posted By: opuslola
Subject: What if St. Peter's in Rome is not really Ancient?
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2013 at 21:49
|
My contention is that St. Peter's basilica in Rome is not as old as we are told. I suggest that any of you who care, actually try to find any certified painting or drawing of it, that precedes 1450 C.E.?
OK, I await a lot of responses. I should have phrased by opening sentence as "the churches / basilicas that stood within the Vatican is not limited to the two that are mentioned today. There could be at least three building, and as few as two but not the Roman style basilica that is shown. Regards, Ron |
Replies:
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2013 at 21:41
|
Still no one has responded? Maybe most of you have some reservations about the age of this monument to Catholicism! As well you should!
Hundreds of years and no extant paintings, or drawings or etchings or woodcuts of the facility? None? At least none you can rely upon. One would think that the very church itself would have kept a record? Regards, Ron |
Posted By: KongMing
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 10:15
|
I don't care. :|
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 10:31
Ditto.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 11:46
2 do "not care" and one tell us more about it!
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 12:13
|
If you actually read the history instead of half assing it, you would see that the original was just one of those constructed by Constantine. By the 1400's it was in a state of disrepair and was torn down.
Work on the present structure began in 1500. It wasn't finished until the late 1600's. There are stacks and reams of drawings and accounts.
BTW, both structures were built over the tomb of St.Peter.
No Mystery.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 15:24
|
But we still do not know colequator's opinion Red!We spoke a lot of contra arguments against what?According your words he is right building we knew had been built after 1400 A.D.How did it
look before it?!?
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 18:07
|
Thanks medenaywe,
I am sorry that Red Clay and his friend, "don't care", but maybe they should? My point is that our agreed upon history only mentions the 1st Basilica and its destruction and the New Basilica that we see today. According to Wiki "Old St. Peter's Basilica was the fourth-century church begun by the Emperor Constantine the Great between 319 and 333 AD.[18" Thus this style of basilica is thought to be common to the times of Constantine or the 4th century CE, and it is agreed that it stood, in that form for over 1,000 years. But, what it really looked like is mere speculation and based upon no real facts. This seems to be true since over that 1,000 year period, there seems to be no extant paintings, woodcuts, etchings, etc. of said basilica! And as far as I know, no remains of it have ever been discovered. I contend, that if indeed there was a great Basilica on this site it was not actually built 1,600 years ago, and even if a basilica stood on this site it was not the immediate predecessor of the current basilica. That is the reason I asked for any of you to find and display an image of it during its 1,000 year history. One would think there would have been hundreds or thousands of examples to examine, but alas that is not the case. I do have access to a painting of St. Peters in or about 1457 CE, and it shows a Gothic style building looking nothing like the basilica style that is often shown as an example of the 1st St. Peter's! Regards, Ron (the half-ass) |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 19:54
Here is a painting from c.1455-60 by Jean Fouquet, showing Charlemagne being crowned inside the Basilica in 800. Not a contemporary image of the event, but maybe an accurate rendition of the interior of the Basilica in the 15th Century? Would the image match the 'new' Basilica or the 'old' Basilica?
|
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 20:25
|
Is there some reason why the exact age matters?
------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 20:52
Thanks for the image. But trying to paint a portrait of an event reportedly 600 years before, is trying for anyone, and especially then. Certainly the interior looks like a typical Basilica from the 4th century or so, but since the "histories" stated that a basilica existed in Rome at that time, then a Roman style basilica it would be. Regards, Ron |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 21:00
|
If anyone here wants to read about the strange life of "The Old St. Peter's" in Rome then Wiki has a site devoted to it. Here is a part of the discussion page at said site.
" the "original" source! So, it is to be found in an illumination variously called "Panoramic view of Rome, from Euclid, Geometry." Vat. Lat. 2224, fol. 98 recto. Phttp://libcat.slu.edu/search~S5?/tElements.+Latin.+1457./telements+latin+1457/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=telements+latin+1457&1%2C1%2C Perhaps this will help you? http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg A visual aid at last. Regards, 96.19.159.196 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes" The dating is assumed to be 1457 CE/AD The above is a part of my communication with Wiki over a long period. But it does show a very "Gothic" looking structure located at what can only be upon the same site as the current St. Peter's! Here is the http for the example; http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 21:16
|
Here it is, I hope someone with the talent can convert it to an image that can be viewed here by anyone.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg The alleged dating of the above is 1457 CE/AD! Right before its destruction. If any of you care, you can read all of my discussion arguments at the "Old St. Peter's" site in Wiki, in the discussion section. Alas, it seems Wiki has deleted most all of my posts. Which can be accessed here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_St._Peter%27s_Basilica Regards, Ron |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 21:24
And sir or lady, I don't care about you or your ideas, that is until you provide me with some ideas. LOL |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 23:55
| http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg - http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 00:39
|
Phttp://libcat.slu.edu/search~S5?/tElements.+Latin.+1457./telements+latin+1457/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=telements+latin+1457&1%2C1%2C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_St._Peters_Basilica - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_St._Peter%27s_Basilica
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg A visual aid at last. Regards, 96.19.159.196 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes"
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 09:44
Dear Sidney, here is a painting by Raphael showing the same event. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Picture+of+Charlemagne+Being+Crowned&id=3BE757ABF3A7D6C1F89C79AB5FA176FDDDFD9907&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=2B3F612F588D364500ECEA7A2156FF9EE77C3A1C&selectedIndex=12 I ask the same question, "Would the image match the 'new' Basilica or the 'old' Basilica?" There does exist numerous versions of this event however. Regards, Ron |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 18:28
I thought this particular image was interesting because it dates from the time that the Old Basilica was still standing, and unlike most renditions of the event, does show the interior of the building quite clearly. The painter had also been to Rome and been into the Basilica, so it seems likely to be based on what he had seen himself. If it looks like the Old Basilica is meant to look like, then it probably was the Old Basilica as it appeared in c.1460. Painters at this time were known for placing historical people within their (the painters)clothes and landscapes - the clothes and regalia in this painting date from the time of the painter, not from the date of Charlemagne, and so does the building. Its not evidence that this is how the building looked in 800, but I believe is evidence of how it looked in c.1460. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 20:22
I am sorry Mountain Man that I did not answer you earlier. There is no exact date that bothers me but rather the pat answer that only two Basilicas have stood within the confines of the Vatican. I think the representation that I showed here dated 1457 CE, depicts a Cathedral that was anything but a very ancient Roman style basilica, it seems to me to be in the Gothic style. Regards, Ron |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 20:35
|
And it is very strange but this representation of a Gothic style cathedral, http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg Has disappeared from both this site and suddenly all of the material on the Wikipedia site also disappeared!
If any of you do look at this representation, for you to understand my position, you would need to expand it and possibly view it in black and white. If you do so, and if you are familiar with the view of Rome from the Dome of the New Basilica, you will easily be able to identify the Pope's passage (passeto), the Tomb of Hadrian (the fortress) and the obvious dome of the Pantheon and some have even claimed they can see the Ara Coeli. Regards, Ron |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 21:45
|
Dear Sidney! You earlier wrote these words; "I thought this particular image was interesting because it dates from the time that the Old Basilica was still standing, and unlike most renditions of the event, does show the interior of the building quite clearly. The painter had also been to Rome and been into the Basilica, so it seems likely to be based on what he had seen himself.
If it looks like the Old Basilica is meant to look like, then it probably was the Old Basilica as it appeared in c.1460. Painters at this time were known for placing historical people within their (the painters)clothes and landscapes - the clothes and regalia in this painting date from the time of the painter, not from the date of Charlemagne, and so does the building. Its not evidence that this is how the building looked in 800, but I believe is evidence of how it looked in c.1460." I am ashamed to say that I read your post in such haste that I missed most of what you intended me to understand. So yes, since it certainly looks nothing like the New Basilica, I would suppose that the interior of the building in my 1457 CE representation, could have looked such. But my expertise of the looks of the various building styles over the centuries is lacking. But you were being gracious and even pointed out the timeline relationship. Perhaps we are both correct? Thanks so much, Ron |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 05:40
| Is Obelisk in front of basilica on pictures?!? |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 10:02
|
No medenaywe, there was not. ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 11:41
In official story Obelisk had been put on square by Caligula!It is a story tale indeed. Regards! Go in Origins,last page or two,look on basilica!
http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk.htm - http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk.htm
|
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 11:56
|
1586 it was moved near the Basilica(which was not that before!There is no Defense sign& Forbidden sign&language.
Sixtus V had Domenico Fontana move it in 1586 to the center of St. Peter's Square.
On floor are Maternal signs from Zodiac also Lions that protects It on the shoulders!
It is also a sun dial, its shadows mark noon over the signs of the zodiac in the white marble disks in the paving of the square. The obelisk rests upon four couchant lions, each with two bodies whose tails intertwine.
Now you have to go in topic about "Was cult of Great Mother exchanged with Jesus"!
NOTE:Link about it's arrival in Rome:(Tuthmosis II,obelis)
http://roma.andreapollett.com/S3/roma-co1.htm - http://roma.andreapollett.com/S3/roma-co1.htm
|
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 12:07
This is The God&Goddess before Christ:("Greek" version,in Egypt it was idolatry act)
 |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 17:55
Dear Med , if you inquire enough you will find that (reportedly) that the "obelisk" originally stood in the middle of a great Roman Circus, where in the northern half of the Circus, was eventually covered by a Basilica, etc. According to our currently accepted sources, if it was still in its ancient location, it would be located just outside of the walls of the current basilica. There exists a few representations of it and two small domed edifices (or tombs) , that were later connected to the original basilica, and named after a couple of lessor known Saints. So the movement of the "obelisk" was merely a matter of a few hundred yards or so. There even exists a representation of the erection of the obelisk online. Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 19:19
View of Rome in 1493, with St.Peters in the centre-left background;
I think the original building of Constantine was extended, repaired and altered over the centuries. When the papacy decided to pull it all down and replace it in tota, the replacement was called the New St.Peters, which meant that in retrospect the preceding building(s) was called Old St.Peters, regardless of how many rebuildings had occurred over those years. Is your argument with Wikipedia, rather than recorded history? |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 20:52
|
Sidney! Methinks you made a mistake in the above description of St. Peter's Basilica, certainly you meant to say upper center right?
Certainly that is San Angelo and Belvedere on the upper right, and in the lower left center is the dome of the Pantheon. And, interesting to say the least, there appears no Obelisks anywhere!! You wrote above; "Is your argument with Wikipedia, rather than recorded history?" The answer is "NO!" The official Roman Catholic history mentions but two building have been built on this site since the 4th century CE. After all, the church is the one that should know the facts? n'est-ce pas? Again, just where are the hundreds of paintings, etchings, woodcuts of the original Basilica? Above you might have shown it, but I doubt it. And, in the realcenter right of the depiction, you will notice a structure that really seems to portray a true Roman style Basilica. Perhaps this is the very building you had identified? It is located almost on the river and has four round arches! This is, supposedly, a very famous Basilica in Rome across the River and is not St. Peter's. Do you have any idea what it was? Hint, the word Saxon is important! Smile Regards, Ron Jump to: navigation, search ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 21:20
|
Oh! Here is the site showing the raising of the Obelisk! Please place it so others can easily see it?
http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk-erect-engrav-fsp.jpg Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 22:05
|
I might well be wrong in my identification of the building Sidney, but this is the only structure that seems to fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schola_Saxonum Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 22:56
|
If any of you are interested in the obelisks found within Rome, please read this good site;
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34162&PID=698189#698189 Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 10:36
| http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk-erect-engrav-fsp.jpg - http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk-erect-engrav-fsp.jpg |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 10:38
| Picture above shows us technic Pyramids were built in. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 14:27
|
Here is an old depiction of Rome that is interactive, so you can roam at will over the depiction.
Here again one can see a good view of St. Peter's (New) and the other great Basilica of the Saxons (Saxia). Many good sights can be found here. Note that it is reportedly dated as 1651 CE. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/1652_Merian_Panoramic_View_or_Map_of_Rome%2C_Italy_-_Geographicus_-_Roma-merian-1642.jpg Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 16:31
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/1652_Merian_Panoramic_View_or_Map_of_Rome%2C_Italy_-_Geographicus_-_Roma-merian-1642.jpg - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/1652_Merian_Panoramic_View_or_Map_of_Rome%2C_Italy_-_Geographicus_-_Roma-merian-1642.jpg
yes it is couple of hundreds meters distance between them on map.Barok looking is not the same.It
looks like simple Gothic cathedral,more minster church.
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 18:44
Absolutely correct. My apologies. |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 19:58
|
Ptolemaeus: Cosmographia (Latin translation of Jacopo Angeli da Scarperia) 1469
Map of Rome (detail)showing St.Peters(bottom right) - 
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2013 at 06:28
|
Hey! Thanks Sidney! Here we see another variation of St. Peter's, and Vatican City. This looks to be but a partial section of an even larger representation. Is the entire thing available?
But you can clearly make out the Pantheon, San Angelo, and the Coliseum, but no obelisks are to be seen which is strange. Can this section be expanded so one can make out the lettering of the various items identified here? If so, can they be translated? And what do you make of these words? "(Latin translation of Jacopo Angeli da Scarperia) 1469". I wonder in what language the original was written? I could only guess it was in Greek? And the date on the depiction, is it the date of the "translation" or the date of the original? Thanks again to you and to Med...! Ron Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2013 at 07:42
|
Here is an old sketch of the New Basilica supposedly under construction.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=St.+Peters+Basilica&Form=R5FD9#view=detail&id=7132B1F85D85AA4A0578130EC9C1159687199D0D&selectedIndex=650 - http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=St.+Peter%27s+Basilica&Form=R5FD9#view=detail&id=7132B1F85D85AA4A0578130EC9C1159687199D0D&selectedIndex=650
It looks more like destruction to me. smile Ron |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 09:05
|
Here you have a lot of official links that confirms story from above:
http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Docs/Basilica-Square1.htm#obelisk - http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Docs/Basilica-Square1.htm#obelisk
|
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 09:06
|
Old St.Peter's basilica:
http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/678/flashcards/1239678/jpg/saint_peters_basilica-_early_chr1330116646484.jpg - http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/678/flashcards/1239678/jpg/saint_peter's_basilica-_early_chr1330116646484.jpg
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 13:10
Depiction of a procession in St.Peter's square 1546 (Basilica is on the left);
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 13:15
The Seven Churches of Rome 1575 (detail);
Full image; http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/395040 |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 13:20
|
The Pilgrims Meet Pope Cyriac Before The Walls Of Rome – Vittore Carpaccio 1493;
http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/vittore-carpaccio/the-pilgrims-meet-pope-cyriac-before-the-walls-of-rome-1493#close - http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/vittore-carpaccio/the-pilgrims-meet-pope-cyriac-before-the-walls-of-rome-1493#close In which appears an obscured image of the Basilica?; 
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 13:25
1489 painting by Hans Memling; Pope Cyriacus receives Saint Ursula at the Basilica. Not a grand view of the building, but how part of it was meant to look (inside & out);
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 19:17
Image of St.Peters in 1588;
http://www.romeartlover.it/SistoV1.html - http://www.romeartlover.it/SistoV1.html |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 19:25
1474 plan of Rome by Alessandro Strozzi;
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 19:31
Taddeo di Bartolo's map of Rome painted 1412-1415 (St.Peters at bottom right):
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 19:38
Detail from a map of Rome by Pietro del Massaio, 1472;
A bit bigger; http://arts.muohio.edu/faculty/benson/Michelangelo%20Site/SistineHistory.html - http://arts.muohio.edu/faculty/benson/Michelangelo%20Site/SistineHistory.html |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 19:56
St.Peters in a book illumination from 1456;
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 20:15
Image of Rome in 1334, showing St.Peters;
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4f59n96q;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print - http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4f59n96q;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 20:21
|
Images of the Basilica from 14th - 16th Century do not show a Gothic structure. Are you sure your image is depicting St.Peter's?
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 22:44
Wow, Sidney I did not know anything this weird existed! Thanks! Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 22:55
|
Well Sidney, if indeed your "seven churches" is legit, then the author knew nothing about North, South etc. But the look of the St. Peter's seems to be the New One, the one seen today.
Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 23:14
|
Yes Sidney, the representation of St. Peter's Basilica from my address does confirm that via the angles or degrees of the angles, which is basic geometry, that the only place within the area of larger Rome. could only be from a rear-ward view of the Basilica and the view of Rome beyond!
And thanks to you, you have added additional material that I have never encountered! You are amazing!! congratulations.. My highest regards!!!!!!!!!!!! Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 23:20
|
Sidney! If I could transmit monies via this site then I would. If I could transmit kisses, then "I would kiss you!"
Wow! What good (new to me) information, you have provided! So, I ask you! What do you think? Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 23:32
|
Sidney! I am sure you see the same things as do I? That is there are "steep steps" rather than a long leisurely bunch of steps leading into the "Basilica?"
Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 23:34
|
Hell! Sidney, we or you? might well solve these problems?
Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 18:58
|
Its been a pleasure looking for these images - it seems they've not been collected together before. I won't make any comments on the structural changes until I've studied it a bit more. The trouble with some of the images is stylistic conventions in drawing, and whether they were eye-witness views or made up from eye witness accounts or just pure imagination.
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 19:01
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 - http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/peutinger/index.html |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 19:18
Map of Rome from c.1330. Best viewed as a negative;
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/vatican/vatican.html - 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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 22:09
|
Exactly Sidney! Take nothing for granted! We have seen numerous representations of the same place, the so called same building/edifice over a period of perhaps 200 years without a duplicate!!!
Strange is not? By the way, have you been able to play with the image I presented? As I mentioned earlier, the angles from behind this Cathedral towards the centre of Rome, tends for me, at least, to consider that this was a first hand view. Everything lines up! Either the cathedral which I denote as "Gothic", is incorrect, or everything expanded towards Rome is wrong! But if one looks long and hard then you will see just where I stand! So, go ahead and really examine the site I provided and was taken down! It shows, from the basic ALIGNMENTS, by degrees, that it is the most reliable document/representation that can be considered. That is, at least four or more of Rome's most famous sites, can be both seen and via some geometry proved that they existed in the very spot of my representation might well give my site more authority than any other? Regards, Ron Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2013 at 22:11
|
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 ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 12:04
How do I look at a site that's been taken down? |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 17:19
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 ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 17:42
I am sorry Sidney, but I think that it was actually displayed here for a short while. I would do it but I have forgotten how, so if you wish, here is the address; http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/b-archeology/images/arch10.jpg I suggested that if possible a black and white copy might well be easier for one to see. Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2013 at 18:28
|
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; 
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2013 at 18:13
|
Yes! Indeed this is the one I spoke of! If you look closely, or blow up the image, you can easily see the Passeto, the Pope's escape wall, leading directly to San Angelo which stands directly in front of the left tower. To the right of the right tower you can easily make out the dome of the Pantheon. To the right of the rear spire, between the tree and the spire you can make out the "ara coeli", and to the right of it, in the far background you can see what I think is the coliseum.
It is a view of Rome, reportedly in 1457, with everything mentioned above being in its correct relationship to St. Peter's Gothic style cathedral. Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 20:11
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 ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 21:39
Yes! It is a very good version, and it begs a question. So, just why would any artist assigned to make a small painting of Rome, would deign to select a view overlooking a Rome that he was very familiar with, and would include his view of so many of Rome's great sites? If he/she? was this familiar with Roma, then just why would he/she fabricate a St. Peters? That supposedly never existed? Just why? would this artist go against the very history of Rome and the Vatican? After all, the Vatican and the Catholic Encyclopedia only acknowledge the existence of but "TWO" buildings to have existed upon this exact piece of property other than the pre-Christian relics of a stadium, etc.? WHY? WHY? Common sense tells you I am correct! And just as certainly the Roman Catholic Church, which is mostly responsible for a lot of this fake history, cannot refute my words and artifacts/ evidence. Truth can recognize "truth" and I have posted nothing more than "truth!" Please refute the above if you can? Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 22:57
|
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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 23:09
|
Sidney, Sidney! Just how far will you go to defend our currently accepted History and Chronology?
Whether the Papal escape wall comes from the Papal chambers is but an illusion, since we really do not know the real place of them nor what the artist was trying to convey to the editor of the book itself! And if you think that some of my identifications would be obscured by this obvious over head view, is impossible. How could the palace of the Pope ever over shadow the church itself? How could it (the Basilica) be "kept out of view?" Be sane for a while, and forget the consensual history that you have been taught! Just use your eyes and common sense, and tell me I am wrong? Just because you have provided images, does not mean they were either correct or real? My deductions are basically a "duh?" Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2013 at 18:14
|
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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2013 at 19:09
|
Well Thanks, I think? But, if you have seen as many representations of St. Peter's as I have, I just have to say, that it might well have been hidden by the Pope's palace is just something I cannot understand. Note the view is looking down and to the right! Unless the "ancient basilica" was a lot shorter than all of the other representations we have looked at, and if so, then the damn Egyptian "NEEDLE" might well have been seen?
By the way, I have never seen another representation of the Papal Palace with "TWO" spires around it? Or even a "spire" in the back of it! Have you? In a court of law, my case might well win, however! Since I have shown motive, (hide the real history), means (the church has always had the means or money, and the opportunity, the destruction of information that was considered "anathema" to the church. It is known, from your considered version of the past that this same Roman Church ordered for hundreds of years, the destruction of any material detrimental to the Roman Church, and it still exists today in the "No read" directives. But, you have been a great resource, and I give you my heartfelt thanks! Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2013 at 21:39
|
From E Brittanica-
Old Saint Peter’s Basilica, first http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/55117/basilica - 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. 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. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2013 at 01:00
Aliens sounds good to me!!! We have lot of building phases for Basilica here.Rome wasn't built in a day!
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2013 at 14:40
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 ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2013 at 17:43
|
I just can't wait for Red Clay to respond with some great examples! I really look forward to some of his great responses.
Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2013 at 19:47
|
I still await, with one of C. Dickens phrases stuck in my mouth, that is with; "Great expectations!" Smile!
Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2013 at 20:14
|
My dear Kong Ming, just why don't you care?
Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2013 at 09:01
|
There is a partial representation of St Peter's within this site concerning obelisks, in the Vatican section.
http://roma.andreapollett.com/S3/roma-co1.htm http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28094 Ron http://http://roma.andreapollett.com/S3/roma-co1.htm - http://roma.andreapollett.com/S3/roma-co1.htm http://http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28094 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28094 It is most strange that when I make some strange post questioning our consensual history, that the site is "taken off line!" This has happened numerous times since I began to post here and indeed it seems to have happened again. Yes! I do believe in conspiracy! It has happened more oft than mere chance could explain. To me, at least, both of the above sites are now dissolved! LOL Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2013 at 17:24
According to this work: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oIAfAgAAQBAJ&dq=Michael+Foresius,&source=gbs_navlinks_s - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oIAfAgAAQBAJ&dq=Michael+Foresius,&source=gbs_navlinks_s the above is not an eye witness illustration, but was based upon the work of Leon Battista Alberti, who composed a coordination system for creating a map of Rome and projecting 3D images from it. 'The miniaturist in Vat. Lat. 224 [the above illustration] adopted Alberti's system and his characterization of Roman features, including errors in Alberti's cityscape' (p.85) Unfortunately the author does not elaborate on what these errors are, leaving it up to us to imagine how much we can trust this painting as 'accurate'. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2013 at 06:09
|
"including errors in Alberti's cityscape'"
Sidney, of course these "experts" found errors! The Gothic style cathedral, sitting where another type of cathedral should have stood is, of course, the major one! Smile Happy New Year every one!!!!! Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2014 at 23:12
Image showing the martyrdom of St.Eugenia in Rome. Whilst her death traditionally occurred in 258 AD, before the Basilica of St.Peter was built, this picture dates from c.1000 AD. Could it be possible that the building on the left represents what the Basilica looked like in c.1000 AD?
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 20:12
|
Well Sidney, it is mostly impossible to say! Certainly it has a classical Roman look, but little more is impossible for me to consider.
Again you find remarkable sites! Prosit! Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 20:49
|
Earlier posted by RedClay!
"There are stacks and reams of drawings and accounts." If so, redclay, then why not show them? Come on Red Clay, come on! Let us see what you got? Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2014 at 21:47
|
I am still awaiting the massive response from Red Clay!
Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2014 at 18:07
|
Hey Red! Are you still searching for the "...stacks and reams of drawings and accounts."?
I do so await them! Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2014 at 21:17
Illustration of a map by Matthew Paris, 1250-1259. The extension on the right shows the walled city of Rome with St. Peters in the top right area.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2014 at 22:57
|
All of Roma in 90%! Just what am I to take from above?
There seems to be almost no relationship to other sites, and as well I cannot read the pseudo-Latin that lists the sites? What this site says, to me at least, is that Roma/Rome was considered to be just that little part of the map, that concerns St. Peter's and nothing else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just what is your point? Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 12:21
I think I shouldn't have used the word 'map' for the above image. Sorry for the confusion. It is part of an illustration of the route that pilgrims would have taken from London to Jerusalem. It shows the route in strips, rather than as an accurate map, only concentrating on the places the pilgrims would pass through or near to, including alternative routes, in their order of sequence. This type of route map is called an 'itinerary map'. The language is French, not Pseudo-Latin. Some of the places you might recognize at the top of the page (from right to left) are the cities of Naples, Salerne, Melphe (Amalfi) and Rise (Reggio). The flap at the top, above these cities, reads 'Lille De Secille' (Isle of Sicily). My point in posting it is to provide another illustration of how St.Peters basilica was represented, although this might not be how it actually looked, and is not an accurate view of the city layout. Since it dates from the mid 13th Century, its a pretty early image. I thought it belonged with the others I've presented. The places named within Rome are on the bottom left (in translation) "the gate towards Apulia", and on the bottom right "the gate towards Lombardy". The large central building is labelled "St John Lateran". Top left is "St.Paul", top right is "St.Peter", and middle left is a building I can't identify. Hope this helps explain. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 14:49
|
Post deleted by the author. ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 19:45
"A long time ago, in a place far, far away..." RedClay typed the above words! Well a lot of time has passed and he/she has yet to post all of the hundreds of the "stacks and reams of drawings and accounts!" LOL! Ron RedClay you must either reply or concede that I was correct! And, I withdraw the above challenge! RedClay has no reason to reply. He owns and runs this site! Hail to the Chief! Regards ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 20:02
|
OH! I am sorry but I was awaiting a lot of material from RedClay, and forgot to mention "Matthew Paris, 1250-1259.", possibly only "Matthew of Paris!" Who is a real strange dude if you look into his life and works!
Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 20:22
Dear Sidney, I just wanted to ask you for the site whereby you questioned if the painting was not by Alberti? Certainly he lived in 1457 CE, and even more certainly he probably supervised the origination of the painting, if I were to guess. Here is just a few words concerning this famous personage from WIKI! "Alberti was gifted in many directions. He was tall, strong and a fine athlete, who could ride the wildest horse and jump over a man's head.[5] He distinguished himself as a writer while he was still a child at school, and by the age of twenty had written a play which was successfully passed off as a genuine piece of Classical literature.[3] In 1435, he began his first major written work, Della pittura, in which, inspired by the burgeoning of pictorial art in Florence in the early 15th century, he analyses the nature of painting and explores the elements of perspective, composition and colour.[4]" Thus, he was also capable of representing his written words as would an ancient Roman! Thus he was a "gifted" person much like Poggio and others. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Francesco_Poggio_Bracciolini A master fo "Classical Literature" who only died a couple of years after the reported date of the illustration mentioned and shown above. Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 20:30
Is it me Sidney are not heads being chopped of in this representation? And the chopper seems to me to be a woman! It even seems two are three are already dead on the ground and about three more await the chop! Smile! A blow up of this small representation might well present me with more information? Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 20:43
And Sidney, according to your hyper-link, this representation might well be by this great brain? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oIAfAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&dq=Michael+Foresius,&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=Michael%20Foresius%2C&f=false And he seems to be a very close cousin of Alberti! But, of course I could be wrong? See this; " Pieros Formation in Sansepolcro 1 In Search of Piero the Persistent Traveler 143950 17 Piero at the Court of Sigismondo Malatesta in Rimini 29 Piero in Arezzo The Legend of the True Cross 44 Creating the Sacred Piero della Francescas Altarpiece for the Confraternity of the Madonna della Misericordia 64 Greek Geometry in Rome and Pieros Trattato dabaco 79 Pieros Return to Patria and Family 96 An Arezzo Interlude 114 Piero in Sansepolcro 147275 152 Piero in Urbino 147577 163 The Persuasiveness of Paternal Authority 147781 181 Piero in the Last Decade of His Life 198 Conclusion 215 NOTES 220 Selected Bibliography 240 Index of Life Paintings and Treatises Life 255 The Practice of Perspective The SantAntonio and SantAgostino Altarpieces and The Flagellation of Christ 120 Piero in Urbino in the Early 1470s 142 General Index 265 Copyright" Could you also post his other representations? Just give the correct attributions and all should be OK! Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 21:31
|
I don't know if Alberti or Piero were involved in the 1457 image, but according to the book I hyper-linked to, the manuscript was the work of Michael Foresius.
I don't think Alberti and Piero were related, but Piero was related to the man who commissioned the 1457 manuscript.
Whose representations? Piero's or Alberti's? And which ones did you have in mind? |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 21:47
I'll look for a bigger one. |