Rome: Colosseum Tour and other must see sights
MACE
We'll be staying in the Prati district, arriving early this Saturday,
leaving next Thursday noon.
We'd like to tour Vatican city, can we arrange a tour for 3 on the day
we want to actually do the tour and if so, what highlights are a must
on that tour, who would you recommend, and what would the price be?
Our next must see sights are the Colosseum, Forum, and Pantheon.
Any tour companys offer just these 3 stops (with actual entrance into
the sights, and if so, recommendations?). Where would we have to go to
start the tour, and what is the cost?
Finally, recommendations on restaurants in the Prati distrct would be
appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
-Paul-
Not the Karl Orff
pmace...@yahoo.com (MACE) wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> We'll be staying in the Prati district, arriving early this Saturday,
> leaving next Thursday noon.
>
> We'd like to tour Vatican city, can we arrange a tour for 3 on the day
> we want to actually do the tour and if so, what highlights are a must
> on that tour, who would you recommend, and what would the price be?
>
> Our next must see sights are the Colosseum, Forum, and Pantheon.
> Any tour companys offer just these 3 stops (with actual entrance into
> the sights, and if so, recommendations?). Where would we have to go to
> start the tour, and what is the cost?
easier just to do it yourself. Quite easy to walk, and also take a
metro. Bus is a bit harder.
Jenn
why would you want a tour? you can in fact hire tour guides on the spot
at the forum -- but these are extremely easy to manage with a guidebook.
I think a really interesting thing to do at the Vatican is the
archeological tour under St. Peters -- done in groups of about 10 [same
language speakers] and must be reserved well ahead -- and it is
important to leave plenty of time to get through St. Peter's security
first so as not to miss the reserved time because it is not correctable.
Other than that -- St. Peters and the Vatican Museum are the big stops,
neither of which requires a guide -- or IMHO is improved by the presence
of a guide but YMMV
Keith Willshaw
"MACE" <pmace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d7b66e.04022...@posting.google.com...
> Hi Folks:
>
> We'll be staying in the Prati district, arriving early this Saturday,
> leaving next Thursday noon.
>
> We'd like to tour Vatican city, can we arrange a tour for 3 on the day
> we want to actually do the tour and if so, what highlights are a must
> on that tour, who would you recommend, and what would the price be?
>
Get a good guidebook and walk it in your own time, the tours go
through much too quickly IMHO
> Our next must see sights are the Colosseum, Forum, and Pantheon.
> Any tour companys offer just these 3 stops (with actual entrance into
> the sights, and if so, recommendations?). Where would we have to go to
> start the tour, and what is the cost?
>
Again do it yourself, the Forum and Colosseum are practically
next to each other and the Pantheon is pretty central.
Take the time to walk over to Castel St Angelo as well
(also known as Hadrians Tomb) its fascinating.
Keith
Iceman
> we want to actually do the tour and if so, what highlights are a must
> on that tour, who would you recommend, and what would the price be?
> Our next must see sights are the Colosseum, Forum, and Pantheon.
> Any tour companys offer just these 3 stops (with actual entrance into
> the sights, and if so, recommendations?). Where would we have to go to
> start the tour, and what is the cost?
Try "Enjoy Rome" for walking tours in Rome. They have tours covering
all of the sites you mention. Probably about US $25 for each four
hour walking tour - you'd want one for the Vatican and a separate one
for the ancient sites. Add about US $10 for admission to the Vatican
Museum or the Colosseum.
If you're on a limited schedule, and you just want to see those
specific things, you might consider contacting the tourist office and
asking for a private guide.
devil
>
> "MACE" <pmace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4d7b66e.04022...@posting.google.com...
>> Hi Folks:
>>
>> We'll be staying in the Prati district, arriving early this Saturday,
>> leaving next Thursday noon.
>>
>> We'd like to tour Vatican city, can we arrange a tour for 3 on the day
>> we want to actually do the tour and if so, what highlights are a must
>> on that tour, who would you recommend, and what would the price be?
>>
>
> Get a good guidebook and walk it in your own time, the tours go
> through much too quickly IMHO
I hated St Peter, talk about grandiose and tacky. Agreed that walking is
good.
>> Our next must see sights are the Colosseum, Forum, and Pantheon.
>> Any tour companys offer just these 3 stops (with actual entrance into
>> the sights, and if so, recommendations?). Where would we have to go to
>> start the tour, and what is the cost?
>>
>
> Again do it yourself, the Forum and Colosseum are practically
> next to each other and the Pantheon is pretty central.
Fair enough. I was in Rome in November, was a Saturday to kill. Stayed
close to the Colosseum, so I went. Turned out the lineup for tickets was
huge. But then there were scalper-like folks selling "tours," which
bypassed the linup. May have been 5/10 Euros more, but well worth
skipping the line. "Tour" was minimal but it left you inside.
> Take the time to walk over to Castel St Angelo as well (also known as
> Hadrians Tomb) its fascinating.
Agreed. Much more than the Vatican's effort to impress. But eh, it's me
and I don't like them and their business...
(BTW, I though the pope's castle in Avignon was so much more interesting...)
Tim Kroesen
Tim K
"Jenn" <je...@hmplc.com> wrote in message
news:jenn-BEC513.1...@news.vanderbilt.edu...
Tim Kroesen
Who financed those other churches and castles BTW...
Tim K
"devil" <de...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.26....@attglobal.net...
Jenn
"Tim Kroesen" <tkro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
book through Vatican -- it cost about 10 Euro when we did it
Jenn
devil <de...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:26:00 +0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> > "MACE" <pmace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4d7b66e.04022...@posting.google.com...
> >> Hi Folks:
> >>
> >> We'll be staying in the Prati district, arriving early this Saturday,
> >> leaving next Thursday noon.
> >>
> >> We'd like to tour Vatican city, can we arrange a tour for 3 on the day
> >> we want to actually do the tour and if so, what highlights are a must
> >> on that tour, who would you recommend, and what would the price be?
> >>
> >
> > Get a good guidebook and walk it in your own time, the tours go
> > through much too quickly IMHO
>
> I hated St Peter, talk about grandiose and tacky. Agreed that walking is
> good.
yes to be sure - but also not to be missed -- many interesting and great
sights are tacky and grandiose
devil
> I'm surprised considering your moniker...<g>
>
> Who financed those other churches and castles BTW...
The sweat and blood of the peasants.
All for the sake of status symbols for their bishop, or in the case of
Rome (and Avignon) the worst of them all, the pope.
Have you ever thought of the cost in human lives of each of these
cathedrals?
Tim Kroesen
Left...?...<g>
Count the live lost for those devil; well I believe you already have.
Tim K
"devil" <de...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.26...@attglobal.net...
Frank F. Matthews
remember correctly. It is part of the Vatican site. If you are trying
to book in Rome you go to the arch to the left as you face St. Peters.
Walk up to the guard (the one in stripes) and ask for "Officio Scavi"
he will direct you a couple of arches into the restricted area. The
office is there. That is also where the tours depart from. There are
only a few places each day so try to get in touch early. I was lucky
and got 2 places a couple of years ago in May on 3 days lead.
It a fascinating place. When Constantine had the first St. Peter's
build he had the hill excavated and filled back to get a level surface.
The excavation is the part of the cemetery which was filled in. If
you want to get an idea what the original St. Peter's looked like visit
St. Paul's in Rome. It is supposed to be a twin of the original.
FFM
SmilerJen
Originally posted by Mace
>
> We'll be
staying in the Prati district, arriving early this Saturday,
> leaving
next Thursday noon.
>
> We'd like to tour Vatican city, can we arrange
a tour for 3 on the day
> we want to actually do the tour and if so,
what highlights are a must
> on that tour, who would you recommend, and
what would the price be?
>
> Our next must see sights are the
Colosseum, Forum, and Pantheon.
> Any tour companys offer just these 3
stops (with actual entrance into
> the sights, and if so,
recommendations?). Where would we have to go to
> start the tour, and
what is the cost?
>
> I lived in Rome for 5 years, and
my best bet for you is to goto Macdonalds and get a map from there, it's
a simple map but it has all the necessary places on it. And then i
suggest to walk everywhere, if you are staying in Rome you can reach
everything by foot if you like walking.
> That way you go when you want
to, and you don't have to feel like a tourist having to stick to
schedules and everything.
> Also you get to feel what Rome is all
about, it is such a beautiful place and there is so much more to see
that just the Colosseum and St Peters, this way you get to feel the
atmosphere and presence of the Italians.
> Take your time, go for an
expresso, if you are feeling brave even hire a moped, that way you
really get to be an Italian.
> Enjoy in whatever you do.
> Smiler
>
>
Finally, recommendations on restaurants in the Prati distrct would be
>
appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
-Paul-
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Tim Kroesen
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UWe%b.541$qo....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:51:36 +0000, Tim Kroesen wrote:
>
> > I'm surprised considering your moniker...<g>
> >
> > Who financed those other churches and castles BTW...
>
>
> The sweat and blood of the peasants.
>
> All for the sake of status symbols for their bishop, or in the case of
> Rome (and Avignon) the worst of them all, the pope.
>
> Have you ever thought of the cost in human lives of each of these
> cathedrals?
OTOH, have you ever thought of the employment they created?
devil
> The same peasants that financed Communism, Socialism and the
> Left...?...<g>
>
> Count the live lost for those devil; well I believe you already have.
Two wrongs make a right?
At least socialism was driven by a will to make the world a better place,
and in many ways it did. If you think you would have had the industrial
explosion that occurred in the US in the first part of the 20th century
without unions and the specter of socialism, think again. If you think
the sweatshops of the early industrial revolution would have gone away
with Marx and the early labor movement, you are dreaming.
OTOH, these cathedrals really served no other purpose than as status
symbols for the various bishops. Of course, nowadays, they make for
wonderful testimony of cruel times thankfully gone. And architectural
wonders.
Still, putting this in the context, building a cathedral must have been,
for each of these relatively small bishopships, un undertaking of a
relative magnitude way beyond the Apollo program. Perhaps two or three
generations whose entire life and economy was totally focused upon
building the bishop's sex symbol.
Jenn
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> You need to get in touch with the excavation office "Officio Scavi" f I
> remember correctly. It is part of the Vatican site. If you are trying
> to book in Rome you go to the arch to the left as you face St. Peters.
> Walk up to the guard (the one in stripes) and ask for "Officio Scavi"
> he will direct you a couple of arches into the restricted area. The
> office is there. That is also where the tours depart from. There are
> only a few places each day so try to get in touch early. I was lucky
> and got 2 places a couple of years ago in May on 3 days lead.
>
> It a fascinating place. When Constantine had the first St. Peter's
> build he had the hill excavated and filled back to get a level surface.
> The excavation is the part of the cemetery which was filled in. If
> you want to get an idea what the original St. Peter's looked like visit
> St. Paul's in Rome. It is supposed to be a twin of the original.
>
> FFM
My family spent a week there a couple of years ago -- my husband's and
my 3rd trip and my daughter's second -- and my young adult son and
daughter both thought this tour was the most interesting thing we did
all week -- and we all loved the whole trip
[ B r a q u e ]
beyond the pope's will...
The construction yard went on for many decades... not to say centuries.
In italian you still have the expression "è un cantiere di san pietro"
meaning a public work that never ends... (road, building or else...)
In fact in these past centuries the people who build the Chuches and
religious buildings truly participated to the "spiritual building" of the
community. It was very important for a community to have the nicer church or
the biggest cathedral of the surroundings.
All the hodmen af a city worked at the project (architect, capenters, stone
cutters...).
Of course the working conditions were very hard but still such was their
conditions at the time. In addition the main religion was "Roman catholic"
and nobody had the right to choose like nowdays. One had to follow
tradition... so in a way the problem didn't even existed.
But people had also the right to "relatively" express their opinion in
other ways...
For example, take the church of San Fortunato in Todi (in Umbria).
There's a strange small figure hiden in the left column at the entrance.
It's a small man that shows its bum to whom enter the church... Surely one
of the stone cutters that wasn't really happy with its job :)
Bon voyage
Braque
<bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c1kmt9$70f$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
> OTOH, these cathedrals really served no other purpose than as status
> symbols for the various bishops. Of course, nowadays, they make for
> wonderful testimony of cruel times thankfully gone. And architectural
> wonders.
Are you talking about some specific cathedrals here, or medieval
cathedrals in general?
In the latter case I think it is wrong to personalise it to that
degree: the political and economic interests of the Church as a whole -
almost an alternative state - were much more powerful than those of any
individual bishop, who in most cases would not live to see his cathedral
completed.
It's also rather odd, IMHO, to see the medieval cathedrals as "testimony
of cruel times". They weren't built by slave labour. Rather, cathedral and
church building helped to keep a lot of relatively highly-paid craftsmen
in work - construction was a big employer in the Middle Ages, and the
actual building of a cathedral as well as the business it later brought
would be a huge economic boost to a town as well as a great source of
civic pride.
(It's also impossible to ignore the fact that religious belief /was/ much
more real to most people.)
Castles may be a bit different as their construction would often have
employed fewer of the specialised trades and perhaps a bit more feudal
coercion. OTOH they also frequently brought prosperity as well as
protection - it's no accident that many towns grew up around them.
Terryo
>
> Fair enough. I was in Rome in November, was a Saturday to kill. Stayed
> close to the Colosseum, so I went. Turned out the lineup for tickets was
> huge. But then there were scalper-like folks selling "tours," which
> bypassed the linup. May have been 5/10 Euros more, but well worth
> skipping the line. "Tour" was minimal but it left you inside.
>
I went to the Palatine. No waiting in line. I got a ticket for the
Palatine and the Colosseum. I spent some time at the Palatine and the
Forum. The next morning, I got up early, went to the Colosseum just
at it was opening, walked past the lines and went right in. I had the
place almost to myself for about a half hour while the others were
being processed through the lines.
Jenn
yr...@sbcglobal.net (Terryo) wrote:
smart move -- similarly in Paris -- you can buy a twofer ticket at the
Concierge that includes St. Chappele -- and skip the St. Chappele line
which is generally long [not the outside security line, but the inside
line for tickets]
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> But people had also the right to "relatively" express their opinion in
> other ways...
> For example, take the church of San Fortunato in Todi (in Umbria).
> There's a strange small figure hiden in the left column at the entrance.
> It's a small man that shows its bum to whom enter the church... Surely
> one
> of the stone cutters that wasn't really happy with its job :)
These are great fun, aren't they? In England they are often found on
misericords, bench ends, ceiling bosses etc., and often take the form of
an animal with a very individual human face - usually it's pretty obvious
that the human is someone the craftsman didn't much respect, perhaps a
building supervisor or priest (=the client).
Slightly differently, in my house there are a number of carvings of
probably the 16th century (although conceivably slightly earlier),
including what seems to be a monkey preaching from a pulpit. I guess it
had to be covered up when certain guests called. ;)
Keith Willshaw
<bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1ldbr$idr$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <pan.2004.02.26....@attglobal.net>,
> de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
>
> > OTOH, these cathedrals really served no other purpose than as status
> > symbols for the various bishops. Of course, nowadays, they make for
> > wonderful testimony of cruel times thankfully gone. And architectural
> > wonders.
>
> Are you talking about some specific cathedrals here, or medieval
> cathedrals in general?
>
> In the latter case I think it is wrong to personalise it to that
> degree: the political and economic interests of the Church as a whole -
> almost an alternative state - were much more powerful than those of any
> individual bishop, who in most cases would not live to see his cathedral
> completed.
>
> It's also rather odd, IMHO, to see the medieval cathedrals as "testimony
> of cruel times". They weren't built by slave labour. Rather, cathedral and
> church building helped to keep a lot of relatively highly-paid craftsmen
> in work - construction was a big employer in the Middle Ages, and the
> actual building of a cathedral as well as the business it later brought
> would be a huge economic boost to a town as well as a great source of
> civic pride.
>
And that didnt just apply to cathedrals, take a look at some
of the large country churches built in the middle ages.
I live in an East Anglian village that even today has a population
of less than 3000 that has a VERY large impressive church
that was built almost entirely by the voluntary donations
of the citizenry.
Keith
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk (Keith Willshaw) wrote:
>
> <bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c1ldbr$idr$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> > It's also rather odd, IMHO, to see the medieval cathedrals as
> > "testimony
> > of cruel times". They weren't built by slave labour. Rather,
> > cathedral and
> > church building helped to keep a lot of relatively highly-paid
> > craftsmen
> > in work - construction was a big employer in the Middle Ages, and the
> > actual building of a cathedral as well as the business it later
> > brought
> > would be a huge economic boost to a town as well as a great source of
> > civic pride.
> >
>
> And that didnt just apply to cathedrals, take a look at some
> of the large country churches built in the middle ages.
>
> I live in an East Anglian village that even today has a population
> of less than 3000 that has a VERY large impressive church
Yup, no shortage of them around here! As you know, it was pretty
commonplace for the church to fund the chancel, and the town the nave (not
to mention individually funded side chapels). This led to centuries of
diverting arguments about who had to pay for repairs when water poured off
one onto the other.
Where do you live AAMOI Keith? I'm in Harwich, was previously in Norwich.
A friend of mine did a site you might enjoy: www.suffolk-churches.co.uk.
Ronald Hands
>
>
> I went to the Palatine. No waiting in line. I got a ticket for the
> Palatine and the Colosseum.
Rick Steves mentions this in his book on Italy. We were on a
tight tour-bus schedule and didn't have time for the Palatine but we
did buy tickets for the Colosseum at one of the ticket booths along
the Forum way, cruised past the huge lineup and zipped right into
the interior of the Colosseum. We were one of the few couples on
the tour, perhaps the only one, who managed to see, and photograph,
the interior.
That tip alone made Steves' book worth buying.
-- Ron
Keith Willshaw
<bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1ll5o$lsr$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Gamlingay , South Cambridgeshire
Keith
devil
> In article <pan.2004.02.26....@attglobal.net>,
> de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
>
>> OTOH, these cathedrals really served no other purpose than as status
>> symbols for the various bishops. Of course, nowadays, they make for
>> wonderful testimony of cruel times thankfully gone. And architectural
>> wonders.
>
> Are you talking about some specific cathedrals here, or medieval
> cathedrals in general?
I can't think of one that's not medieval. But anyway.
> In the latter case I think it is wrong to personalise it to that
> degree: the political and economic interests of the Church as a whole -
> almost an alternative state - were much more powerful than those of any
> individual bishop, who in most cases would not live to see his cathedral
> completed.
Sure, the church was all-powerful and much more so than the state. Status
symbol for the church, not simply the bishop? OK, somewhere in betwen,
I'll buy that.
> It's also rather odd, IMHO, to see the medieval cathedrals
as "testimony
> of cruel times". They weren't built by slave labour. Rather, cathedral
> and church building helped to keep a lot of relatively highly-paid
> craftsmen in work - construction was a big employer in the Middle Ages,
> and the actual building of a cathedral as well as the business it later
> brought would be a huge economic boost to a town as well as a great
> source of civic pride.
The church, through the local bishop had near-total control on the
community. The undertaking was a huge one for the local community.
These folks must have gone through a couple of generations, with the
entire community entirely focused on the construction.
Some folks may have been decently paid, but surely not all, and the
community must have beem heavily taxed (OK, "voluntarily"), or have paid
for them one way or another. This must have absorbed a significant
fraction of their resources.
> (It's also impossible to ignore the fact that religious belief /was/
> much more real to most people.)
The church had total control. Might not have been terribly healthy not to
show signs of "more real beliefs?"
But surely there must have been all sorts of folks?
> Castles may be a bit different as their construction would often have
> employed fewer of the specialised trades and perhaps a bit more feudal
> coercion. OTOH they also frequently brought prosperity as well as
> protection - it's no accident that many towns grew up around them.
A bit of a different situation, depending to some extent of the periods.
Cities were not important in early medieval times; local serfs must have
been an important contributors in building local castles.
Major stuff for major guys must have largely been paid from taxes.
devil
> I live in an East Anglian village that even today has a population
> of less than 3000 that has a VERY large impressive church
> that was built almost entirely by the voluntary donations
> of the citizenry.
I would suspect many folks felt truly compelled to "voluntarily"
contribute.
MACE
Hey:
Gonna jump in here and says THANKS to all for the feedback (and I also
enjoyed the personnal POV's posted...cool!)
Thanks again...will post a trip report next week...
Keith Willshaw
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:19:39 +0000, barney wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.02.26....@attglobal.net>,
> > de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
> >
> >> OTOH, these cathedrals really served no other purpose than as status
> >> symbols for the various bishops. Of course, nowadays, they make for
> >> wonderful testimony of cruel times thankfully gone. And architectural
> >> wonders.
> >
> > Are you talking about some specific cathedrals here, or medieval
> > cathedrals in general?
>
> I can't think of one that's not medieval.
There are 2 in Liverpool alone and another in Coventry
Keith
Keith Willshaw
There were social pressures but thats about it, particularly
generous contributors got a plaque on the wall or got to be
buried in a prime spot. It was rather like people giving to
charity today.
Keith
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:19:39 +0000, barney wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.02.26....@attglobal.net>,
> > de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
> >
> >> OTOH, these cathedrals really served no other purpose than as status
> >> symbols for the various bishops. Of course, nowadays, they make for
> >> wonderful testimony of cruel times thankfully gone. And
> > architectural
> >> wonders.
> >
> > Are you talking about some specific cathedrals here, or medieval
> > cathedrals in general?
>
> I can't think of one that's not medieval. But anyway.
I can think of lots. What I meant was, are you talking about the
particular cases of cathedrals X, Y and Z, or in general. But anyway. ;)
> > In the latter case I think it is wrong to personalise it to that
> > degree: the political and economic interests of the Church as a whole
> > - almost an alternative state - were much more powerful than those of
> > any individual bishop, who in most cases would not live to see his
> > cathedral completed.
>
> Sure, the church was all-powerful and much more so than the state.
I don't know that I buy "much more so than the state" as a general rule.
Obviously the story is different from place to place and time to time -
but the pattern is of continued (political) conflict /between/ church and
state for supremacy, not the clear dominance of one or the other. In
England of course Henry VIII had a neat solution!
> Some folks may have been decently paid, but surely not all, and the
> community must have beem heavily taxed (OK, "voluntarily"), or have paid
> for them one way or another. This must have absorbed a significant
> fraction of their resources.
People gave to the church and as you say the degree of "voluntariness" is
debatable. Just as today I suspect it ran the full gamut. But, people give
- in a rather involuntary way - to their governments today through
taxation, and some of that money goes toward public works which benefit
the whole community economically.
I'm not trying to paint some rosy picture of the Middle Ages here, but
just suggesting that the idea of a community expending vast amounts of
time and labour on the construction of a cathedral was not as bizarre, or
as much of an unbearable imposition, as it might seem today - because
there were /real/ benefits to be had.
And don't forget the church was very wealthy anyway, through land
ownership for example. It didn't have to raise the funds for
cathedral-building from scratch.
> > (It's also impossible to ignore the fact that religious belief /was/
> > much more real to most people.)
>
> The church had total control.
Well, as above, I think that's over-stating the case.
> Might not have been terribly healthy not
> to
> show signs of "more real beliefs?"
There's certainly something in that. Informally it was pretty much
tolerated if you were just lackadaisical about religious observance, but
completely unacceptable to challenge the religion, and of course there was
no public discourse about alternatives.
Having said that, I don't think one can put medieval religious observance
entirely down to pressure. It was possible to lead (almost) as secular a
day-to-day life as today but Christianity formed a much more essential
part of most people's system of beliefs and values. So again, the building
of a cathedral wouldn't have been perceived as the kind of minority
interest it might be today.
Frank F. Matthews
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:19:39 +0000, barney wrote:
>
>
>>In article <pan.2004.02.26....@attglobal.net>,
>>de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OTOH, these cathedrals really served no other purpose than as status
>>>symbols for the various bishops. Of course, nowadays, they make for
>>>wonderful testimony of cruel times thankfully gone. And architectural
>>>wonders.
>>
>>Are you talking about some specific cathedrals here, or medieval
>>cathedrals in general?
>
>
> I can't think of one that's not medieval. But anyway.
snip
How about Westminster? FFM
>
devil
Tax credit?
Oh, you mean indulgences, I see.
devil
> In article <pan.2004.02.27...@attglobal.net>,
> de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
>
>> Sure, the church was all-powerful and much more so than the state.
>
> I don't know that I buy "much more so than the state" as a general rule.
> Obviously the story is different from place to place and time to time -
> but the pattern is of continued (political) conflict /between/ church and
> state for supremacy, not the clear dominance of one or the other. In
> England of course Henry VIII had a neat solution!
Sure, things come and go. But the bulk of the gothic cathedrals that
popped up like mushrooms across Europe, within a century of each other,
came up at a time where the primacy of the church was quite clear.
Canossa etc.
It takes the Renaissance, reformation etc. for the church to really lose
it.
>> Some folks may have been decently paid, but surely not all, and the
>> community must have beem heavily taxed (OK, "voluntarily"), or have
>> paid for them one way or another. This must have absorbed a
>> significant fraction of their resources.
>
> People gave to the church and as you say the degree of "voluntariness"
> is debatable. Just as today I suspect it ran the full gamut. But, people
> give - in a rather involuntary way - to their governments today through
> taxation, and some of that money goes toward public works which benefit
> the whole community economically.
My point remains that the cost of the undertaking was truly huge in
relation to the product of the communities involved. Thus it would have
required a couple of generations whose life would be entirely focused upon
construction. These were relatively small towns. The period in the
middle ages was still mostly before cities became wealthy.
Surely to get that to happen, the local bishop must have had total
control? Sure, they must have used the fear of god as a key tool, so
technically, most folks would have "supported" the thing.
But from today's perpective, this comes across to me as a totally
different world, and one that I am happy not to live in.
BTW, when you look at the brutality of some of their wars, you get a bit
of the same feeling. I suspect these armies must have all been quite
drunk, otherwise it's hard to imagine these folks willingly engage in
these bloodbaths?
> I'm not trying to paint some rosy picture of the Middle Ages here, but
> just suggesting that the idea of a community expending vast amounts of
> time and labour on the construction of a cathedral was not as bizarre,
> or as much of an unbearable imposition, as it might seem today - because
> there were /real/ benefits to be had.
>
> And don't forget the church was very wealthy anyway, through land
> ownership for example. It didn't have to raise the funds for
> cathedral-building from scratch.
These were still times were wealth derived from land ownership. Convents
and monasteries may have been wealthy, then later on, some religious
orders which got into banking. However I suspect the real treasures that
the church amassed date from somewhat later.
>> > (It's also impossible to ignore the fact that
religious belief /was/
>> > much more real to most people.)
>>
>> The church had total control.
>
> Well, as above, I think that's over-stating the case.
The church is the only pillar of stability during the early middle ages.
As political power concentrates again in the hands of a few kings, sure,
there is some struggle. But the crusades really are a show of power by
Rome. Getting these guys to stop fighting each other and instead go by
Rome's agenda.
> Having said that, I don't think one can put medieval religious
> observance entirely down to pressure. It was possible to lead (almost)
> as secular a day-to-day life as today but Christianity formed a much
> more essential part of most people's system of beliefs and values. So
> again, the building of a cathedral wouldn't have been perceived as the
> kind of minority interest it might be today.
No argument there.
Keith Willshaw
More one upmanship. You knew you'd made it when the
family had its own designated pew and a prime burial spot.
> Oh, you mean indulgences, I see.
>
Oh heavens no, indulgences were a whole different business,
most people couldnt even begin to afford them.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
>
> > In article <pan.2004.02.27...@attglobal.net>,
> > de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
> >
>
> >> Sure, the church was all-powerful and much more so than the state.
> >
> > I don't know that I buy "much more so than the state" as a general rule.
> > Obviously the story is different from place to place and time to time -
> > but the pattern is of continued (political) conflict /between/ church
and
> > state for supremacy, not the clear dominance of one or the other. In
> > England of course Henry VIII had a neat solution!
>
> Sure, things come and go. But the bulk of the gothic cathedrals that
> popped up like mushrooms across Europe, within a century of each other,
> came up at a time where the primacy of the church was quite clear.
> Canossa etc.
>
> It takes the Renaissance, reformation etc. for the church to really lose
> it.
>
Problem is a large number of cathedrals were built
after that period.
St Pauls was built in London in the 17th century, both
cathedrals in Liverpool are 20th century buildings, Cologne
wasnt completed until 1880 .
> >> Some folks may have been decently paid, but surely not all, and the
> >> community must have beem heavily taxed (OK, "voluntarily"), or have
> >> paid for them one way or another. This must have absorbed a
> >> significant fraction of their resources.
> >
> > People gave to the church and as you say the degree of "voluntariness"
> > is debatable. Just as today I suspect it ran the full gamut. But, people
> > give - in a rather involuntary way - to their governments today through
> > taxation, and some of that money goes toward public works which benefit
> > the whole community economically.
>
> My point remains that the cost of the undertaking was truly huge in
> relation to the product of the communities involved. Thus it would have
> required a couple of generations whose life would be entirely focused upon
> construction. These were relatively small towns. The period in the
> middle ages was still mostly before cities became wealthy.
>
On the contrary the 14th century was a quite prosperous period
when wealth really started to flow into the cities of Europe
> Surely to get that to happen, the local bishop must have had total
> control? Sure, they must have used the fear of god as a key tool, so
> technically, most folks would have "supported" the thing.
>
In most countries the wealth of the church came from tithes , a form
of income tax that. In return the church provided most of the
education that was available, the hospitals amd of course spiritual
consolation.
> But from today's perpective, this comes across to me as a totally
> different world, and one that I am happy not to live in.
>
Indeed it was and as an agnostic it's hardly the world I'd choose
but lets not kid ourselves that the church was simply an
oppressive force. It wasnt that simple.
> BTW, when you look at the brutality of some of their wars, you get a bit
> of the same feeling. I suspect these armies must have all been quite
> drunk, otherwise it's hard to imagine these folks willingly engage in
> these bloodbaths?
>
For the same reaon the SS and NKVD did, ideology is a heady brew.
> > I'm not trying to paint some rosy picture of the Middle Ages here, but
> > just suggesting that the idea of a community expending vast amounts of
> > time and labour on the construction of a cathedral was not as bizarre,
> > or as much of an unbearable imposition, as it might seem today - because
> > there were /real/ benefits to be had.
> >
> > And don't forget the church was very wealthy anyway, through land
> > ownership for example. It didn't have to raise the funds for
> > cathedral-building from scratch.
>
> These were still times were wealth derived from land ownership. Convents
> and monasteries may have been wealthy, then later on, some religious
> orders which got into banking. However I suspect the real treasures that
> the church amassed date from somewhat later.
>
>
> >> > (It's also impossible to ignore the fact that
> religious belief /was/
> >> > much more real to most people.)
> >>
> >> The church had total control.
> >
> > Well, as above, I think that's over-stating the case.
>
> The church is the only pillar of stability during the early middle ages.
Hardly, this is the period when the new nation states come into
being and marks a sharp decline of the temporal power of the church
hence the exile of the Popes in Avignon.
Between 1305 and 1375 the popes were forced out of Rome
to Avignon and their troubles didnt really end until the end of the
great schism in the 15th century
> As political power concentrates again in the hands of a few kings, sure,
> there is some struggle. But the crusades really are a show of power by
> Rome. Getting these guys to stop fighting each other and instead go by
> Rome's agenda.
>
In fact relatively few of the crusades were organised by the pope
and only the first, called by Urban II was a struly international
affair
The second was largely the project of Louis VII of France
The third was a primarily German affair and the
fourth was referred to as Frederick II's crusade
Keith
devil
>
> "devil" <de...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.02.28....@attglobal.net...
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:23:28 +0000, barney wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2004.02.27...@attglobal.net>,
>> > de...@attglobal.net (devil) wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >> Sure, the church was all-powerful and much more so than the state.
>> >
>> > I don't know that I buy "much more so than the state" as a general rule.
>> > Obviously the story is different from place to place and time to time -
>> > but the pattern is of continued (political) conflict /between/ church
> and
>> > state for supremacy, not the clear dominance of one or the other. In
>> > England of course Henry VIII had a neat solution!
>>
>> Sure, things come and go. But the bulk of the gothic cathedrals that
>> popped up like mushrooms across Europe, within a century of each other,
>> came up at a time where the primacy of the church was quite clear.
>> Canossa etc.
>>
>> It takes the Renaissance, reformation etc. for the church to really lose
>> it.
>>
>
> Problem is a large number of cathedrals were built
> after that period.
If you look at the previous paragraph, I was really referring to earlier
than that. Early Gothic, when they mushroomed, within a roughly 50 years
period. Mostly late 12th, early 13th century. Reims started in 1211,
Chartres 1194, Laon 1180, Poitiers 1162, Bourges 1195, Cologne actually
started late, in 1248.
>> >> Some folks may have been decently paid, but surely not all, and the
>> >> community must have beem heavily taxed (OK, "voluntarily"), or have
>> >> paid for them one way or another. This must have absorbed a
>> >> significant fraction of their resources.
>> >
>> > People gave to the church and as you say the degree of "voluntariness"
>> > is debatable. Just as today I suspect it ran the full gamut. But, people
>> > give - in a rather involuntary way - to their governments today through
>> > taxation, and some of that money goes toward public works which benefit
>> > the whole community economically.
>>
>> My point remains that the cost of the undertaking was truly huge in
>> relation to the product of the communities involved. Thus it would have
>> required a couple of generations whose life would be entirely focused upon
>> construction. These were relatively small towns. The period in the
>> middle ages was still mostly before cities became wealthy.
>>
>
> On the contrary the 14th century was a quite prosperous period
> when wealth really started to flow into the cities of Europe
I was talking about the wave of early gothic construction. 12th-early
13th century. By the 14th century, most bishopships have there. (Sure,
as your examples show, a few more will be built. But that's really
outside of the big wave.)
>> But from today's perpective, this comes across to me as a totally
>> different world, and one that I am happy not to live in.
>>
>>
> Indeed it was and as an agnostic it's hardly the world I'd choose but
> lets not kid ourselves that the church was simply an oppressive force.
> It wasnt that simple.
Oh sure. This was before science as we know it started happening. Scary
world where very little came across as predictable. Under the caprice of
(the) god(s). Helps the bishops controlling people's mind though.
>> BTW, when you look at the brutality of some of their wars, you get a
>> bit of the same feeling. I suspect these armies must have all been
>> quite drunk, otherwise it's hard to imagine these folks willingly
>> engage in these bloodbaths?
>>
>>
> For the same reaon the SS and NKVD did, ideology is a heady brew.
That may be true of the church, but I don't see much ideology in most
medieval wars/fights. Just land grabs.
>> The church is the only pillar of stability during the early middle
>> ages.
>
> Hardly, this is the period when the new nation states come into being
> and marks a sharp decline of the temporal power of the church hence the
> exile of the Popes in Avignon.
It seems our definition of "early" middle ages differ. In my book, it's
mostly the feudal period. Starting from the fall of Rome until cities
appear and the centralized kingdoms emerge. All the stuff you refer to
comes later.
> Between 1305 and 1375 the popes were forced out of Rome to Avignon and
> their troubles didnt really end until the end of the great schism in the
> 15th century
But then, the Avignon episode has lots to do with the emergence of France
as the dominant power. Hence a pope whom the control.
>> As political power concentrates again in the
hands of a few kings,
>> sure, there is some struggle. But the crusades really are a show of
>> power by Rome. Getting these guys to stop fighting each other and
>> instead go by Rome's agenda.
>>
>>
> In fact relatively few of the crusades were organised by the pope and
> only the first, called by Urban II was a struly international affair
Fair enough.
Keith Willshaw
Little was predictable except death and taxes. The average person
could expect half his children to die before reaching maturity and
a 55 year old individual was regarded as old.
> >> BTW, when you look at the brutality of some of their wars, you get a
> >> bit of the same feeling. I suspect these armies must have all been
> >> quite drunk, otherwise it's hard to imagine these folks willingly
> >> engage in these bloodbaths?
> >>
> >>
> > For the same reaon the SS and NKVD did, ideology is a heady brew.
>
> That may be true of the church, but I don't see much ideology in most
> medieval wars/fights. Just land grabs.
>
You havent heard of the Albigensian crusade then ?
>
> >> The church is the only pillar of stability during the early middle
> >> ages.
> >
> > Hardly, this is the period when the new nation states come into being
> > and marks a sharp decline of the temporal power of the church hence the
> > exile of the Popes in Avignon.
>
> It seems our definition of "early" middle ages differ. In my book, it's
> mostly the feudal period. Starting from the fall of Rome until cities
> appear and the centralized kingdoms emerge. All the stuff you refer to
> comes later.
>
The period you are referring to is more usually referred to as the
dark ages, during this time virtually the only centralised
organisation was the Church, It was assuredly the main
centre of scholarship and knowledge in Europe. Most
of the kings of the period were illiterate.
Life was hard during this period, there was little in the
way of law and order and as you say termporal rulers
held onto power by dint of armed force.
The only hope for most people during the Dark Ages was
their strong belief in Christianity, and the hope that life in heaven
would be better than life on earth.
That said the early period is generally held to have come to
an end around 1000 AD when nation states including
France and England emerged in a form that would be
recognisable today
England became united under Eadgar the Peaceful in 959
Norway was united and converted to Christianity in 993
In 995 the last if the marauding tribes of Central Europe
(the Slavnici) was subdued and absorbed into the kingdom
of Bohemia
In 996 France was united under Duke Richard the Good of
Normandy
In 997 Stephen of Hungary managed to finally pacify that
section of Central Europe and bring it inder Hungarian rule.
> > Between 1305 and 1375 the popes were forced out of Rome to Avignon and
> > their troubles didnt really end until the end of the great schism in the
> > 15th century
>
> But then, the Avignon episode has lots to do with the emergence of France
> as the dominant power. Hence a pope whom the control.
>
More to do with the loss of control of Europe by the papacy. In 1294
Pope Boniface the VII tried to exercise the sort of control that Innocent
III
had in 1215. He was immediately opposed by both France and England and
French troops marched into Italy and seized him
Keith
devil
>
> "devil" <de...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.02.29....@attglobal.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh sure. This was before science as we know it started happening. Scary
>> world where very little came across as predictable. Under the caprice of
>> (the) god(s). Helps the bishops controlling people's mind though.
>>
>
> Little was predictable except death and taxes. The average person
> could expect half his children to die before reaching maturity and
> a 55 year old individual was regarded as old.
>
>> That may be true of the church, but I don't see much ideology in most
>> medieval wars/fights. Just land grabs.
>>
>
> You havent heard of the Albigensian crusade then ?
Not convinced the "heresy" was the actual cause. More like a pretext. The
Toulouse court was so much richer and more civilized than the king's.
>> >> The church is the only pillar of stability during the early middle
>> >> ages.
>> >
>> > Hardly, this is the period when the new nation states come into being
>> > and marks a sharp decline of the temporal power of the church hence the
>> > exile of the Popes in Avignon.
>>
>> It seems our definition of "early" middle ages differ. In my book, it's
>> mostly the feudal period. Starting from the fall of Rome until cities
>> appear and the centralized kingdoms emerge. All the stuff you refer to
>> comes later.
>>
>
> The period you are referring to is more usually referred to as the
> dark ages, during this time virtually the only centralised
> organisation was the Church, It was assuredly the main
> centre of scholarship and knowledge in Europe. Most
> of the kings of the period were illiterate.
>
> Life was hard during this period, there was little in the
> way of law and order and as you say termporal rulers
> held onto power by dint of armed force.
>
> The only hope for most people during the Dark Ages was
> their strong belief in Christianity, and the hope that life in heaven
> would be better than life on earth.
I think more to the point, the church was the only stable organization.
Most people were probably busy trying to survive (if poor) or to stay
alive (kind of the same thing, isn't it?) if they were among the few lords.
> That said the early period is generally
held to have come to an end
> around 1000 AD when nation states including France and England emerged
> in a form that would be recognisable today
Sure. Except I would not call them nation-states. That only shapes up
in the eighteenth century. Largely a by-product of the French
revolution. When the centralized state switches from belonging to the
king to being the people's thing. Res Publica. Eventually leading to the
stupid 20th century wars but that's another story.
>> > Between 1305 and 1375 the popes were forced out of Rome to Avignon
>> > and their troubles didnt really end until the end of the great schism
>> > in the 15th century
>>
>> But then, the Avignon episode has lots to do with the emergence of
>> France as the dominant power. Hence a pope whom the control.
>>
>>
> More to do with the loss of control of Europe by the papacy. In 1294
> Pope Boniface the VII tried to exercise the sort of control that
> Innocent III
> had in 1215. He was immediately opposed by both France and England and
> French troops marched into Italy and seized him
Largely the result of France replacing the Saint Empire as the dominant
power still.
Keith Willshaw
"devil" <de...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.29....@attglobal.net...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:43:30 +0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> >> That may be true of the church, but I don't see much ideology in most
> >> medieval wars/fights. Just land grabs.
> >>
> >
> > You havent heard of the Albigensian crusade then ?
>
> Not convinced the "heresy" was the actual cause. More like a pretext. The
> Toulouse court was so much richer and more civilized than the king's.
>
Heresy was VERY much the cause. The Catholic church was extremely
nervous of Catharism. Pope Innocent III made sure of support for his crusade
by not only offering indulgences for combatants but declared that the
heretics' lands
were open to be taken. This offer enticed many knights from far who needed,
or
merely sought more land. When the crusaders took Beziers and found that a
few hundred Cathars had mingled with the 20,000 inhabitants the Papal
legate ordered the entire population to be killed saying
"Kill them all! God will recognize His own!"
The state was pre-eminent in England by 1689 when the act
of succession made it clear that Parliament had the final
say on who became monarch.
>
> >> > Between 1305 and 1375 the popes were forced out of Rome to Avignon
> >> > and their troubles didnt really end until the end of the great schism
> >> > in the 15th century
> >>
> >> But then, the Avignon episode has lots to do with the emergence of
> >> France as the dominant power. Hence a pope whom the control.
> >>
> >>
> > More to do with the loss of control of Europe by the papacy. In 1294
> > Pope Boniface the VII tried to exercise the sort of control that
> > Innocent III
> > had in 1215. He was immediately opposed by both France and England and
> > French troops marched into Italy and seized him
>
> Largely the result of France replacing the Saint Empire as the dominant
> power still.
>
Just so, the nation state had become dominant.
Keith
Frank F. Matthews
would not allow oaths. Since the oath of fealty was essential to the
development of the state at that time the civil government had a great
interest in the suppression as well. Pretty much everyone with major
power was pissed off. FFM
Keith Willshaw
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:F1u0c.13118$qo....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> Hardly the only cause. One complicating factor was that the Cathars
> would not allow oaths. Since the oath of fealty was essential to the
> development of the state at that time the civil government had a great
> interest in the suppression as well. Pretty much everyone with major
> power was pissed off. FFM
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
The only persons required to swear an oath of fealty were those
holding lands from an overlord. As far as I recall most of the
landowners in the Languedoc did so as required. The threat
to the church came from the Good Men and Women who
renounced all wordly wealth and power and were well
thought of , especially in comparison with the corrupt Catholic
church of the period. The feudal system was in any case
relatively weak in Languedoc as a result of the tradition of sharing
inherited land equally between all the children, men and women
alike. Doubtless the King of France would prefer a simpler
feudal mode but the evidence is clear that the papacy was the
driving force behind the crusade.
Keith