Roman Pantheon

>Roman Pantheon
>Colosseum
>Nimes Arena
>Arch of Trajan
>Arch of Constantine
>Porta Nigra
>Porta Palatina
>Mausoleum of Hadrian/Castel Sant'Angelo
>Pont du Gard
>Alcántara Bridge

Am I missing any other outstanding surviving examples of Roman architecture and engineering?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_ancient_Roman_buildings_and_structures
paneast.com.jo/JordanSyria.html
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_Carrée
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Pyramid of Cestus
Hadrian's Wall
Baths of Diocletian

The Mausoleum of Galla Palcidia is pretty dope

Oh yeah this. Also, the Cistern of Justinian, Theodosian Walls and a whole bunch of shit in Constantinople also.

>Tfw when you will never be able to see the Hagia Sophia in it's grandest state, and instead would only be able to see the garbage the Ottomans replaced it with

Hagia Sophia looks the same shit as it did except the towers, what are you talking about. I'm more upset that there are no surviving Hippodromes.

Are you retarded? The interior of the Hagia Sophia was literally ripped out and painted over l, the marble floors were even ripped out.

Amphitheatre of El Jem

Aqueduct of Segovia
Temple of Diana in Emerita Augusta
Tower of Hercules

>interior

You didn't mention that. It looks the same from the exterior except the towers. We already know what Byzantine art/decoration looked like anyway. St. Mark's Basilica is the best example of Byzantine architecture btw.

Oh, there's also the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna. Should be similar enough to what Hagia Sophia looked like from the interior since it was built during the same time.

Verona Arena

The Hagia Sophia was said to be decorated in a particularly ornate manner, if i remember correctly there was extensive use of gemstones

So it should look closer to St. Mark's Basilica then. The mosaics and other decorations are literally all made of gold and gemstones.

Arch of Septimius Severus in Leptis Magna (the one in Rome is cool too but decayed).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_ancient_Roman_buildings_and_structures

aqueduct of segovia

Whats the different between the grecce parthenon and roman pantheon? i got a 10 page essay on history of architecture due by may. would appreciate some copy paste.

literally exactly the same with different names.

The fuck are you talking about?

There's something really awe inspiring about unmortared masornry, especially the arches.

The Greek thing is a glorified shed with simply post and lintel stone stacking a.k.a. baby's first attempt at monuments while the Romans built a fuck hueg dome out of the equivelant of space age materials.

oh you mean the actual structures, I thought you just meant the pantheon of gods, which are the same gods.

scupture from this were literally appropriated by Justinian for the Hagia Sophia
what are those oblique angle shape thingies?

true
If you visit Spain you have to go to Segovia, it's close to the capital

>The Greek thing is a glorified shed

The Temple of Athena the Virgin is quite possibly the greatest building of the 1st millennium BC. Your opinion is shit.

>which are the same gods

Not true, although the Romans tried to equate the two. But for example Mars was a god of the citizen-soldier and a patron of the Roman state while his Greek equivalent Ares was seldom worshipped and was seen as more like a force of nature.

>glorified shed

That's not the Forbidden City.

A little known one. The ancient stadium of Trimontium, almost completely intact, running underneath the main pedestrian street for about 200 meters, many of the buildings have excavated sections of it in their basements.

Is there nothing from the Middle East? Did the Mudslimes destroy it all?

seems to me they were both the god of war, and the only difference is that romans emphasis certain deities more than the greeks did because of their own cultural quirks. That doesn't change the fact that they're literally the same stories just with different names, how someone worships in a religion does not change the facts of the original doctrine.

When was this? the bronze age?

Part of the seats being excavated in the basement of a modern building. What's interesting is that the thing had extensive water drainage system along with clay pipes with fresh water coming from the aqueduct passing right next to it running underneath the whole track with several thing resembling stone water sluices. The purpose of the fresh water pipes underneath the track is subject of speculation. I'm not going to jump the bandwagon and say it was flooded to simulate sea battles.

The basilica of Trier and Curia Iulia

Nah, it's only recently that Muslims have started destroying pre-islamic shit.

You can see tonnes of classical ruins in the middle east, for example:

>paneast.com.jo/JordanSyria.html

I think the ISIS leaders only told people to destroy some of that shit in order to massively increase demand for it. For example, destroy some Assyrian sculptures and you'll be able to charge some rich fucker the absolute premium because he'll think that if he doesn't buy them now they won't exist for long.

I recall at some point the Mamluks were considering destroying ancient egyptian monuments, or maybe it was the Fatimids, can't remember.

The Maison Carrée built under August, also in Nimes
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_Carrée
There are also numerous roman monuments and vestiges scattered around the city. I love that place, Nimes is really a gem if you like roman history.

They fucking ruined the temple by restoring it too much. Can't be called ancient architecture anymore.

No doubt it happened at some points, no doubt at all. It would be surprising if it didn't.

When one religion or culture takes over another, they clash and tragedies happen such as the destruction of great monuments, censorship of the arts, humanities or sciences, so on so forth.

It was Justinian, the Christian Byzantine Emperor, who shut down the Platonic Academy in Athens on the grounds that it promoted heresy.

However, Wahhabism has increased the rate at which this process happens.

It would've been far more ornate and colourful than that.

See the much smaller Chrora church also in Constantinople. Even though it's a museum now my jaw dropped when I walked in.

When was it built? Because depending on the era it could be very remarkable or very mundane

>slavniggers stole this from Venice

They will pay.

...

...

Man fucking Croatland is godtier, and the best part is being a slavshit I can understand 50% of what they are saying, 90% when there is slivovitza involved.

>Croatland

Fuck off. Istria is Veneto. Roman monuments belong to Latin people, not subhuman squatters.

Habsburg hungarians have taken something from Venetians, that wasn't even built by them, so you feel obliged to piss on those who happen to have in administration now through abhorent shitposting.

user, if you can't take history for what it is, you should study more, and numb yourself to the fact that every state had it's shite and asshole moments.

came here to post it

Low quality bait even lower quality post. Get fucked with your "WE WUZ" attitude

EVERYHING in Istria was built by Venetians. Istria was even part of Roman Italy back then. Slavniggers need to fuck off back to Mongolia.

What in the fuck are you on about mate? If this is not baiting, then you are fucking retarded and you should feel lucky that you've lived past your 18th birthday. Nobody here is claiming any legacy. They are fucking posted in a thread about Roman architecture for crying out loud. Calling it Venetian is you basically doing the same thing you are accusing them off.
Then again this is me being an idiot responding to an over the fucking top obvious shitposter

There you go again, acting like an autist.

I'm not calling Roman architecture Venetian, I'm saying it belongs to Venice/Veneto.

Jesus Christ, I thought autists like you were limited to the Balkans...Venice is as much a successor kingdom as is Croatia or whatever the fuck it was called in the 4-5th century

venice doesn't own the land, God does. To say it is someone else's is blasphemy, and he gave it to the people who lived there

When you visit Istria, remember that it wasn't subhuman slavshits who built everything there, but Venetians. It was part of the Republic of Venice for almost 800 years.

And it was part of Roman Empire before that and part of some other empire before that and another one before. Nigga you sound almost Turkish trying to claim a non-existent legacy.

>non-existant

Damn, you're really making me angry, slavnigger. I hope another war breaks down in the Balkans soon enough so Veneto can snatch it's rightful land from them.

>wasn't subhuman slavshits who built everything there, but Venetians
Bullshit, m8. The locals (Croats) built things.

>The locals (Croats) built things.

The locals were Italians, the "Croats" are catholicized Serbs who settled the coast a mere 300 years ago

>going full retard
It was settled by Croats before the Venetian Republic existed. Istria was conquered by Venetians and Dalmatia was bought. Various Croatian cities like Zadar would frequently rebel against the Venetians. And there's no talk of "Italians" until the 19th century. Stop being autistic.

Italians failed to get "their" clay back over two world wars. They only thing they can catch is another L if they try a third time.

Venice reconquered rightful Italic land. Slavniggers are not even from Europe, they're from Mongolia.

>It was settled by Croats before the Venetian Republic existed.

The 10th century "Kingdom" of Croatia did not include Istria whatsoever.

Split, Istria, Zadar and Dubrovnik were Latin-speaking Italic city-states until the 19th century.

"Croats" are an invented nation with a dubious past.

I was talking about Croats settling the area, not about a kingdom.

>"Kingdom"
>Split, Istria, Zadar and Dubrovnik were Latin-speaking Italic city-states until the 19th century.
>"Croats" are an invented nation
Autism.

>I was talking about Croats settling the area, not about a kingdom.

>Implying the Croats lived outside of their short-lived "kingdom" for which there barely historical evidence.

You created a little kingdom and 50 years later you were conquered by the Hungarians and lived as servants for 1000 years under the Austro-Hungarians.

Any more lessons needed on croatian history?

You forgot the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, my dude.

Indeed. The fate of the CroRAT is to live as eternal slaves. Be it to Venetians, Austrians, Turks, Hungarians, etc. CroRATIA is as much of a nation as Ukraine. We should really grow some balls and take back Istria from them like Russia took back Crimea from Ukraine.