Is the KOLN, church as old as advertised?
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=34163
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 23:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is the KOLN, church as old as advertised?
Posted By: opuslola
Subject: Is the KOLN, church as old as advertised?
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2013 at 21:57
|
Just how many representations (paintings, drawings, etc.) of this great cathedral in Cologne, Germany that precede the 18th century C. E. can you provide? And, indeed, if some are found just what is their provenance? Supposedly it was under construction for several hundred years.
Regards, Ron |
Replies:
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2013 at 12:13
|
Here is a woodcut of Cologne, dated to mid 16th Century, which shows the cathedral centre right.
https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/26131 - https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/26131 
It comes from the Cosmographia of Sebastian Munster, first published in 1544, although it wasn't until the 1550 and later editions that he started to include city scapes. The thing that looks like a bent spire is in fact the wooden crane used in the construction of the cathedral. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2013 at 21:08
|
Thanks for the response, but this one dates to 1493! And it looks nothing similar.
https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/36030/Colonia/Schedel.html Sorry I don't know or remember how to transfer photos to this site. IF you could do so, then we would have a method of comparing them. But there seems to me little or no comparison appears. If you care to read the WIKI article you will see these words; "The foundation stone was laid on 15 August 1248, by Archbishop Konrad von Hochstaden. The eastern arm was completed under the direction of Master Gerhard, was consecrated in 1322 and sealed off by a temporary wall so it could be in use as the work proceeded. Eighty four misericords in the choir date from this building phase. In the mid 14th century work on the west front commenced under Master Michael. This work halted in 1473, leaving the south tower complete up to the belfry level and crowned with a huge crane that remained in place as a landmark of the Cologne skyline for 400 years.[6]" Thus until about 1850 CE or later. In this photo you will see "your" 400 year old crane still in action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rheinpanorama_1856_detail_Dom.jpg So, we are to believe that a wooden crane stood (mostly unused)for 400 years? This sort of strains my ability to believe. Do you believe it? Could you entertain the idea that the times of Sebastian Munster might well have been stretched some what? Thanks, Ron |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 17:52
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 18:17
This is an image from a 1612 book cover; 
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 18:23
Here is a painting by Jan van der Heyden c.1660-65;
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 18:27
|
Thanks so much Sidney. If you don't mind could you show this also?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rheinpanorama_1856_detail_Dom.jpg |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 18:44
Another painting by van der Heyden, c.1690;
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 18:46
Sorry, won't let me, but here's another file with the same image; 
|
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 19:04
Painting by Hans Memling of St.Ursula in Cologne, showing the cathedral and the crane in the background as it appeared in c.1489;
All these image seem to disagree with your image from 1493. I suggest that as the cathedral structure also looks quite different in the 1493 image, that image is likely an artist's impression, rather than an eye-witness's picture. |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 19:13
Lastly, here is another painting of St.Ursula in Cologne (from the "Small Ursula Cycle - artist unknown), dated to the 1440s. The crane and cathedral appear in the background;
It seems the crane really did exist for over 400 years, although I would guess that when they finally got around to re-using it they needed to replace the rotten parts first! |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 21:36
Actually Sidney it looks very similar to the 1856 photo! At least to me. Regards, Ron |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 14:28
|
Here is a 19th century (1880) view of the construction of the great towers of St. Peter's cathedral in Koln Cologne.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Germany-1880-COLOGNE-CATHEDRAL-Koln-Collectible-Antique-Art-Print-Engraving-/331077208954?pt=UK_art_prints_GL&hash=item4d15bd4b7a And as this print shows, there were no signs of the twin towers in 1842! http://www.ebay.com/itm/GERMANY-COLOGNE-Koln-1842-Fine-antique-print-/330916391402?pt=UK_art_prints_GL&hash=item4d0c2769ea |
Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 17:59
|
The 1489 image does indeed look very like the 1856 image. This just goes to show how little construction was carried out between those two dates - a time span reflected in the illustrations I've provided, and would be reflected in the written documents that survive for Cologne throughout that period.
The 1842 painting is taken at a peculiar angle (from behind the cathedral body, truncating the structure and obscuring the unfinished end). The angle is such that the visible buildings hide the crane and most of the masonry that it stood upon. Your 1880 engraving is near the end of completion. They are much higher and thus more visible - not to mention its a completely different angle and taken expressly to show the towers progress. An image from 1798 - showing the crane; 
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 22:55
|
Sidney can you post a copy of the
1880 photo? You will notice that this is the first time I have seen scaffolding! Also note that a lot of work seems to have been accomplished in the intervening years! More than half was completed between 1798 and 1880 it seems? What do you think? Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2014 at 23:11
|
As you can see, in 1856 CE the great cathedral was nearing completion. So, just how did the congregation use it in this condition?
Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2014 at 23:24
Please compare the 1489 painting to the 1889 photo? Seems eerily similar does it not? Actually the elder painting seems to show the completion was further along then than in 1889 and a real photograph! I.e. reality hits the fan! Regards, Ronald ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2014 at 23:35
|
Can't any of you see that the entire scheme, considered correct today, is wrong? It is so simple that "even an caveman can see it!" Smile
Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2014 at 23:39
Even this etching from 1544 seems to be a "fake" since it seems to show about the same completion set as the photograph from the 19th century! Regards, Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2014 at 23:44
So which is it? Is it 1789, or 1493 example?, Or even the 1450 example? lol Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2014 at 22:22
|
I hereby consider that the history of the Cathedral of Koln, Germany as we are told it today is merely fiction!
If any of you can prove it otherwise, then please post? Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |