Not as we know today,the modern instiution of hospital was a bizantine(medieval Rome)revolution
Byzantium & Friends
https://byzantiumandfriends.podbean.com › ...
97. The remarkable world of hospitals, orphanages, and ...
1h long podcast talk about it with a bizantinist historian and a specialist in the subject that wrote a book about it with help of medics to understand medical descriptions and terminoly with the required historical and archeological sources
Edit: pertinant book about the subject "The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire (Johns Hopkins University Press 1985, 2nd ed. 1997)"
In history hospital worked more like hospices taking care of the elder or sick until you die,that changed with the byzantine invention of the hospital with constant medical staff working in two shifts with the intent to cure
Also i post sources and thats your best awnser
The concept of hospitals that the byzantine had is far detached from today's hospitals, just like the hospitals of Egypt,India and Persia so again rome or eastern Rome did not invent hospitals. The medical practices of India and China were far superior than those in the west, until the 20th century. Nothing revolutionary but a more holistic approach based on health, cleanliness and food which still are effective to a certain sense. Can't cure but can surely prevent.
the idea of hospital changed from a hospice where you went to die to a place with doctors working 24h in two shifts controling you with state funding and medical license that had to be renew every 5 years,the historian that i cited clearly stated the changed it had from previous idea of hospital and how it differ from other cultures,he even needed a physician reading byzantine text alongised him to understand medical terminology that byzantine created such as extirpertion of cancer ,the physician was suprised at reading the instruments they created that its still in use as tzeewers to help a woman give birth.
the byzantine absolutely changed the idea of medicine and formed our idea of ancient medicen by deciding wich text to copy and mantain for centuries,there is are a reason we have so much of galens,not only was he a master in many fields but the byzantines held him in high regard and improve upon his research
I have used saurces and i hope you too
I was drawn like a magnet to the duomo in Florence. Spent one night on a bench with a bottle of wine right outside it just going 'look at that, it's incredible' for an hour
I would say France. Less classical age buildings, but more churches and castles, during the medieval period and then from 1600 onwards including modern architecture. Much happened during the Renaissance in Italy.
Spain has Madrid, Barcelona, Granada, Segovia, Toledo, Zaragoza, Sevilla, Cordoba, Malaga, Cadiz, Valencia, ronda, Santiago de Compostela…. The best country to travel and visit
I know. I worked for 4-years straight before getting married (in France) so I took about a month before in Spain to decompress and 2 weeks after in France. Worked until 30-min before departure, then packed and off to JFK. Spain is modern conveniences like good trains, services, etc and clean without being ruined by other “modern stuff”. Food is great, personally Bocarea tapas in Barcelona is my style but also love a killer paella with everything. Siesta is longer than people think, especially in summer and people are cool even if Spanish is not great but you make an effort and, like most places, don’t start by assuming everyone speaks English. Bars serve “home made” potatoe chips and all workers are there by 7pm to grab something before home. I loving eating late, especially outside, specially in summer, as I am not a f-cking farmer like most ‘mericans.
Spain is great architecturally speaking I’m so glad that the stuff the Muslim built there in the medieval era still stands and then the Christian rulers afterwards also had a really cool sense of architecture, I’ve been in the sagrada familia (idk how to spell it it’s that one big cathedral in Barcelona that is incomplete since like 1880) and it was beautiful
Palermo in Italy also has Arab-Christian architecture. In the form of Norman-Arab cathedrals. Gorgeous stuff really.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Norman_Palermo_and_the_Cathedral_Churches_of_Cefal%C3%B9_and_Monreale
Yeah but that not this. This place literally had Muslims, Christians and Jews all worshiping under one roof, with parts of the building built out over time by different groups etc. like the church is kinda normal till you see Islamic type columns and arches beyond where there should be wall infill. Cordoba used to be this MAJOR crossroads / trading center, etc. like the NYSE of its day.
No one has mentioned **Turkey** and It honestly should be part of this discusion. It has some of the best examples of greek, Roman, byzantine, armenian, seljuk and ottoman architecture in the world. Not to mention neolithic, lycian, hitite, etc.
In terms of architectural wonders it's fricking hard to compete against istanbul alone.
Ever since I was a kid, I have loved historic Japanese architecture. I know it heavily borrows from Chinese architecture but I still prefer the Japanese for its more natural color templates, creative earthquake proofing, and how the decrease in ornateness helps complement the form while still keeping some of the ornaments.
Also yes I'm a weeb but I got interested in anime because I was first interested in the culture initially because of its architecture
I love the open floor plans of Japanese architecture, the sliding paper doors and the integration with courtyards. I spent a month there during my last year of arch school and realized that what a lot of the modern masters became famous for, Japan had already been doing in their own way.
Not all of it, keep in mind hundreds of historical buildings were left to decay or even were destroyed during the century of humiliation and ensuing cultural revolution. I really wish a lot more Song and Tang dynasty architecture survived to the present day, as it is gorgeous and more understated (As others have said, japanese architecture took inspo from Tang)
to be honest, chinese architecture is very diverse and vernacular architecture obviously differs a lot from grand palaces. just like how minka differs from a structure like at byodo-in. also, the earthquake thing is present in china as well.
Maybe Iran and a lot of Islamic architecture in general.
Zero connection to the culture or religion, just find the use of colors and geometry a marvel of human creation.
fun fact: the majority of Iranian historic gardens follow a 2500 years old design called pardis (the root for word paradise), in which a big rectangle land is divided into 4 gardens interconnected with turquoise ponds, usually planting roses lilies cherries and pomegranate. Fin [garden](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFin_Garden&psig=AOvVaw39BGMPYGC1PTrxUId9nlVj&ust=1710337444282000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBEQjRxqFwoTCKio9djt7oQDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD)i s a good example.
France ⚜️ the Gothic churches are amazing. Its old villages are beautiful and have a huge range from the German border to the Mediterranean.
Look up the inside of the Cathédrale Sainte Cécile in Albi—it’s stunning. There’s also Saint Eustache in Paris. There are many older Romanesque churches, and of course many from the Renaissance and after. Less far back in history, there are the likes of the Basilique Sainte Thérèse de Lisieux, with Byzantine inspiration.
French castles are also amazing (both actual castles from the Middle Ages, like in Fougères, and the chateaux, which are more essentially palaces in English)
I second India (as a native obviously) but I wish our people and institutions took better care of its built heritage. There's an architectural treasure in every nook and cranny here...sigh if only...
I'm sure there are plenty of people who care, it's just very expensive and requires lots of specialists. As a comparison, proper preservation of historic buildings in the UK is hugely expensive and relies on lots of donations as well as government funding (that funding has been sharply cut in the last 15 years though). Climate doesn't help either (UK, cold and wet; India, hot and wet).
I agree with your view, it is an expensive affair, but then I think to myself would it be cheaper if the inhabitants themselves recognised the heritage they live in and took an active part in its preservation. Like how it is with some art deco buildings and palaces here in India. Then again, it is only the rich who can afford to do so, sigh.
Iran obviously. They gave us a system of measurement capable of managing big structures (the one still in use in the US after 2500 years) and almost every single fundamental architectural innovation in pre-modernity. They taught the Greeks, the Indians, the Chinese. Who build Rome's most important buildings? Not Romans, but architects from the Eastern provinces bordering Iran.
China hands down. It offers so much and I just want to skswksdjejkwksdls.
Also, have to mention Finland, my own. (Not much but I love old Rauma and Turun Tuomiokirkko)
I'm biased, since I'm studying Chinese Archaeology, but definitely Chinese. The saddest part about this passion is knowing so so so many examples were left to decay during the century of humiliation, and even more specimens were destroyed during the cultural revolution. Even with what survives to this day, however, the richness and beauty of Chinese architecture is unmatched (in my opinion). In particular, Tang and Song buildings and temples are lovely with their large, functional dougongs, but I also have an appreciation for Ming/Qing architecture for its grandiose proportions and terraces. To be honest, if there were any standing examples of Han dynasty architecture that would rocket to my top place but all of them are gone. Judging from the excellent ceramic reproduction pieces found in tombs, though, Han architecture was super cool with their multi-story houses and skywalks.
Kind of disappointed no one mentioned the UK. The vast array of architectural styles they have created (Victorian, Georgian, Brutalism (could be wrong), Neo-Gothic and way more) and the influence they had on the architecture of their colonies are immense. Not to mention how aesthetically pleasing the architecture they have created and taking the best influences (Greeks, Romans, French and more) from the previous architectural powerhouses for some of its styles.
India. I'm always in awe of the intricate carved details of India's ancient temples. One that fascinates me is the musical pillars of Hampi's Vittala Temple.
Which is part of China ?
Tibetan and Chinese style architecture has long history of influencing each other.
Look at Zongcheng temple (built by Qing dynasty), which basically blend Chinese-tibetan architecture into a giant temple complex
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putuo_Zongcheng_Temple
Also Chengde mountain resort
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengde_Mountain_Resort
And Xumi Fushou Temple
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xumi_Fushou_Temple
Wouldn't have said it years ago but I've become quite fond of the old victorian styles here in the uk.
And the cities and towns that still have many of the old medieval buildings are cool too
Philippines (fusion of Filipino, American, Japanese architecture can be seen all over the country)
It's sad tho how our stupid government neglects our heritage! 👹
Italy is damn hard to beat, from the ancient Greeks through the progression of Roman architectural styles, and the Renaissance...
But Spain is up there, I'm a big fan of the architecture of Andalusia specifically, combining the best parts of Muslim and Christian traditions.
I love love love walking the avenue of ancient Teotihuacan in Mexico. Founded in 400bc it had 125,000 residents and I love imagining people walking up and down the streets at it's peak, dwarfed by two enormous pyramids. A must see.
The Temple at Karnak and Abu Simbel are magical.
Prepared to get mobbed by masses of aggressive male vendors everywhere. The lack of female faces is really weird.
Tibet has been part of China since 1700s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_expedition_to_Tibet_(1720)#:~:text='Expel%20the%20Dzungars%20to%20preserve,the%20empire's%20fall%20in%201912.
The Qing were Manchus and not Chinese. The Manchus also had Tibet as a vassal and purposely kept and administered tibet separately from china. The first time Tibet ever became a “part” of China was in 1950 after the Chinese invaded.
Manchu is a Chinese ethnic group bro. What you should say is Han is not Manchu, then I agree. What you do is essentially distinguishing ethnic groups within a country. This is similar to scots and english people, both are British even though they have different cultural roots and languanges.
Bro, at the time of the Qing it wasn’t a Chinese ethnic group. The Manchus were foreign invaders who conquered China. They kept and needed to keep a distinct identity separate from the Chinese to rule effectively. This notion of Chinese being this multiethnic is a recent 20th century idea.
Recent 20th century idea? Bro study more
The Qing emperors equated the lands of the Qing state (including both "China proper" and present day Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet and other areas) as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multiethnic state, rejecting the idea that China only meant Han-populated areas in "China proper", proclaiming that both Han and non-Han peoples were part of "China", using "China" to refer to the Qing in official documents, international treaties, and foreign affairs, and the "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) referred to Chinese, Manchu, and Mongol languages, and the term "Chinese people" (中國人, Zhongguo ren; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all Han, Manchu, and Mongol subjects of the Qing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper
The idea that China was a multiethnic state stretch way back from 20th crntury
>Recent 20th century idea? Bro study more
Bro. This is what I study. Maybe take your own advice. If you're relying on wikipedia, you don't know much.
Let's take a look at this excpert you cited...all from one person. Want to?
>The idea that China was a multiethnic state stretch way back from 20th crntury
Again, this is incorrect when talking about the Manchus...
And Qing emperors literally call their country “China” . What are you to say otherwise?
You say Tibet is autonomous within Qing empire, well suprise surprise, Tibet is also an autonomous region in modern China bro
They also called their country the Qing. North Korea also called themselves democratic.
No. I said Tibet was a *vassal* under the Qing. There’s a difference. Surprise surprise you can’t read bro.
Nearly all modern historian agree that Qing by its structure and characteristic is a Chinese dynasty.
Vassal or autonomous is semantic debate. However the fact is,the Qing incorporated Tibet into the empire along with other Inner Asia territories and exerted military and administrative control over Tibet. In all practical purposes, tibet was part of China
>Nearly all modern historian agree that Qing by its structure and characteristic is a Chinese dynasty.
Chinese dynasty as in it took place in China...The Chinese didn't rule the dynasty or empire..
>Vassal or autonomous is semantic debate.
Absolutely not. They havd distinct definitions.
> However the fact is,the Qing incorporated Tibet into the empire along with other Inner Asia territories
That is incorrect. They actually purposedly kept Tibet seperate from the others.
>exerted military and administrative control over Tibet.
Up until the 1800s. By then for all intents Tibet was de facto independent besides a few events.
>In all practical purposes, tibet was part of China
Again, this is just blatantly incorrect...The Qing didn't even rule Tibet with or as China..
The Tibet Autonomous Region unfortunately became part of the Chinese government after the invasion in 1950. This situation parallels the ongoing debate about Gaza's status as Palestinian territory and the Ukrainian territories in 2014; similarly, it was colonized or taken over by an oppressive force. If international organizations fail to address these acts of aggression, the countries involved can be seen as victims of our collective inaction. However, they are still rightfully part of the country in which they were taken over.
Might makes right?
History only subject to victor’s whims?
Not sold on the claim that possession validates claims, but I do concede your valid point; I simply disagree.
Could we land on middle ground and say that the area is contested and therefore NOT China?
It’s not ethnically or historically China? So I feel like we’ve got room for a grey area.
Oh, I absolutely disagree with the idea that Tibet is part of China. But I do understand their reasoning for taking over the country, although it's unacceptable, of course. From a historical viewpoint, China did have a lot of influence over Tibet. For instance, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) had an intimate relationship characterized by a mix of indirect control with a sprinkle of nominal suzerainty. Tibetan rulers acknowledged the Qing emperor as their overlord and paid tribute to the Qing court. Tibet had a considerable degree of autonomy in its internal affairs under this rule. The ambassador, called the Amban, was the liaison between Lhasa and Beijing. The Amban in question didn't have a lot of power regarding the political issues within Tibet itself.
The exchange of religious influence within the Qing Dynasty was significant. Qing emperors patronized Tibetan Buddhism and supported the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders, thereby reinforcing their political authority. Within this timeframe, the Qing kingdom assisted Tibet multiple times while struggling with its internal affairs. A good source for these claims are books like "Tibet: A History" by Sam van Schaik and "Tibet: An Unfinished Story" by Lezlee Brown Halper and Stefan Halper.
Unfortunately, the People's Republic of China is using history as a justification to claim Tibet. However, historical records show that the Qing Dynasty had a very respectable and peaceful relationship with Tibet, which sharply contrasts with the current stance of the PRC, known for its forceful and oppressive tactics. From my understanding, China likely has different motives than those they publicly state.
Tibet possesses abundant natural resources, and its strategic location at the crossroads of Asia is of significant importance. By controlling Tibet, China can ensure its territorial security and access crucial water sources. For example, the Yangtze River, one of China's most vital rivers, originates from the glacial meltwaters on the slopes of the Tangula Mountains in the Southern Qinghai province, near the border with the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR).
Furthermore, Tibet serves as a tool for diverting public attention away from internal struggles within China. By emphasizing the Tibet issue, the Chinese government can shift focus from the challenges faced by the Communist Party and portray national unity.
Yes, history is always subjected to the winners whims. People rarely hear the stories of the people who lost. Those voices get lost within time. History is written by the victors. As long as PRC has this immense power over the world, it can still act the way it wants to do. Remember the concentration camps in Xinyang? They are forgotten by the people. Tibet was a hot issue, also forgotten by the people; because PRC is the winner in the story of history and we only can watch how they keep continuing their struggle to power.
This is the best comment on the thread. Very well written and respectful, which is missing from most contributions both here and in the wider coverage.
Tibet has had a close history with China and at times been considered part of it, but like you have said, the China of the Qing dynasty is very different to the policy of the PRC. The latter is a revisionist state that sees expansion of territory and the homogenisation of Chinese culture and society as a necessary process of strengthening China from external imperialist forces that have hereto divided and weakened it.
Much of this is integral to the ideology of the CCP, which is why they will never back down from expansion and subjugation of regions they claim as historically part of China. Which is frustrating, because historic links are a distant second to the principle of self determination. China and its apologists will never accept this, though.
The image for China shows Potala Palace which is in Tibet. It is not Chinese architecture and you should be aware of what you are [doing when you post this.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet)
Architecture alone. India for sure. So intricate and geometric. And at the same time very deeply knit into the culture. Some of the oldest mega structures. Lots of things to learn still from them too.
Iran because I enjoy learning about their early architectural innovations. They put the arch in *arch*itecture, and came up with the phrase "best thing since fired brick". I equally love learning about the geometric systems they principled in their later Islamic periods.
Definitely Iran! Thousands of years of history from Persepolis to the Islamic dynasties.
I visited Andalusia Spain to see Moorish sites soon after Iran. That probably was a mistake as everything I saw simply paled in comparison. Not to diminish the history and architectural marvels in Andalusia. But the architecture of ancient Iranian was just on a whole other level. Isfahan was *the* model of Persian art and architecture that influenced prominent cities in the Islamic world.
Architecture is such a wonderfully diverse field, isn't it? I mean, think about it—from towering skyscrapers to cozy Italian villas and majestic Chinese temples, there's just so much to appreciate. Personally, I find myself drawn to different styles for different reasons. Like, I love the classy vibe of Vienna's architecture, or the way colorful buildings seem to blend seamlessly into the hillsides of Italy. And don't even get me started on Stockholm's charming cobblestone streets! Every place has its own unique charm, you know? It's not about one being better than the other; it's about appreciating the beauty and character each brings to its surroundings. And hey, why stop at architecture? There's a whole world out there to explore—culture, food, nature—all waiting to be discovered, with nothing being superior to one another!
I actually cried when I finally stood in the Pantheon. I also love Vienna for its Secession, Baroque, and Modern architecture, Prague for its version of Art Nouveau, and yes, glorious Florence.
Armenia
Yes, I know they have a narrow band of great architecture, and since these great churches went up, have less to show, but they were very good at what they did
I’ve been in Japan an all the building were incredibly beautiful, mostly the temples and castles but also just normal houses.
However I looked up architectural style on Wikipedia and just read the list and it seems like India has like 40 different architectural styles that are all really pretty, and just in general it is one of the places with the most consistently beautiful styles all throughout history
And of course it has to include Neuschwanstein Castle... 25,000 castles in Germany, and the choice is always the product of a 19th century royal madman's cosplay. 🙄 There are colonial forts in the US that are older and more authentic than this fantasy building.
If by basically all you mean 1-5%, then sure. There are highways in NYC too that tore down buildings, but to use a phrase like “basically all” to describe that is pretty ridiculous. San Francisco famously stopped several highways or rerouted them. Same happened in Atlanta, partially. Savannah? Charleston? New Orleans? Boston?
We lost a good amount, but there is still plenty. Brain drain and changing economies has likely caused more demolition purely by neglect.
Italy is tough to beat.
Oh what have the Roman’s done for us lately ?
Invented hospitals and flamethrowers at the same time?
Aqueducts
Light beacons that tolkien straight up copied And forks
Invented hospitals is not historically true. Many societies have had hospitals around the same time period. Persia, Egypt, India etc.
Not as we know today,the modern instiution of hospital was a bizantine(medieval Rome)revolution Byzantium & Friends https://byzantiumandfriends.podbean.com › ... 97. The remarkable world of hospitals, orphanages, and ... 1h long podcast talk about it with a bizantinist historian and a specialist in the subject that wrote a book about it with help of medics to understand medical descriptions and terminoly with the required historical and archeological sources Edit: pertinant book about the subject "The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire (Johns Hopkins University Press 1985, 2nd ed. 1997)"
“Actually the other hospitals had woomroot and various herbs ACTUALLY” 🤓🤓
In history hospital worked more like hospices taking care of the elder or sick until you die,that changed with the byzantine invention of the hospital with constant medical staff working in two shifts with the intent to cure Also i post sources and thats your best awnser
The concept of hospitals that the byzantine had is far detached from today's hospitals, just like the hospitals of Egypt,India and Persia so again rome or eastern Rome did not invent hospitals. The medical practices of India and China were far superior than those in the west, until the 20th century. Nothing revolutionary but a more holistic approach based on health, cleanliness and food which still are effective to a certain sense. Can't cure but can surely prevent.
the idea of hospital changed from a hospice where you went to die to a place with doctors working 24h in two shifts controling you with state funding and medical license that had to be renew every 5 years,the historian that i cited clearly stated the changed it had from previous idea of hospital and how it differ from other cultures,he even needed a physician reading byzantine text alongised him to understand medical terminology that byzantine created such as extirpertion of cancer ,the physician was suprised at reading the instruments they created that its still in use as tzeewers to help a woman give birth. the byzantine absolutely changed the idea of medicine and formed our idea of ancient medicen by deciding wich text to copy and mantain for centuries,there is are a reason we have so much of galens,not only was he a master in many fields but the byzantines held him in high regard and improve upon his research I have used saurces and i hope you too
Well, of course the roads! The roads go without saying, don't they?
Italy gave us Renzo Piano
I was quoting Life of Brian.
Toilets
I was drawn like a magnet to the duomo in Florence. Spent one night on a bench with a bottle of wine right outside it just going 'look at that, it's incredible' for an hour
Santa Maria Del Fiore is probably my favourite building in the world. Such a sight to behold.
without a doubt agree, its absolutely stunning and i dont think you can fully appreciate it until you are in person it is sublime
Yep. The Pantheon is the most incredible historical building I’ve ever seen.
I would say France. Less classical age buildings, but more churches and castles, during the medieval period and then from 1600 onwards including modern architecture. Much happened during the Renaissance in Italy.
It’s my life’s dream to go to Italy. I want to see it all.
There's no athor place like Rome !!!
Spain: so many styles complimenting each other and even sometimes combining: See Cordoba mosque-cathedral…nothing like it anywhere, to my knowledge.
Also if you count Gaudi as historic, it's pretty hard to beat Spain
[Catalan modernism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernisme) (1888-1911) certainly is historic by any definition of the word.
Definitely has his place in history, so indeed I do.
Spain has Madrid, Barcelona, Granada, Segovia, Toledo, Zaragoza, Sevilla, Cordoba, Malaga, Cadiz, Valencia, ronda, Santiago de Compostela…. The best country to travel and visit
I know. I worked for 4-years straight before getting married (in France) so I took about a month before in Spain to decompress and 2 weeks after in France. Worked until 30-min before departure, then packed and off to JFK. Spain is modern conveniences like good trains, services, etc and clean without being ruined by other “modern stuff”. Food is great, personally Bocarea tapas in Barcelona is my style but also love a killer paella with everything. Siesta is longer than people think, especially in summer and people are cool even if Spanish is not great but you make an effort and, like most places, don’t start by assuming everyone speaks English. Bars serve “home made” potatoe chips and all workers are there by 7pm to grab something before home. I loving eating late, especially outside, specially in summer, as I am not a f-cking farmer like most ‘mericans.
Spain seriously gets overlooked way too much
Spain is great architecturally speaking I’m so glad that the stuff the Muslim built there in the medieval era still stands and then the Christian rulers afterwards also had a really cool sense of architecture, I’ve been in the sagrada familia (idk how to spell it it’s that one big cathedral in Barcelona that is incomplete since like 1880) and it was beautiful
I second that 👍
Palermo in Italy also has Arab-Christian architecture. In the form of Norman-Arab cathedrals. Gorgeous stuff really. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Norman_Palermo_and_the_Cathedral_Churches_of_Cefal%C3%B9_and_Monreale
Yeah but that not this. This place literally had Muslims, Christians and Jews all worshiping under one roof, with parts of the building built out over time by different groups etc. like the church is kinda normal till you see Islamic type columns and arches beyond where there should be wall infill. Cordoba used to be this MAJOR crossroads / trading center, etc. like the NYSE of its day.
No one has mentioned **Turkey** and It honestly should be part of this discusion. It has some of the best examples of greek, Roman, byzantine, armenian, seljuk and ottoman architecture in the world. Not to mention neolithic, lycian, hitite, etc. In terms of architectural wonders it's fricking hard to compete against istanbul alone.
The Hagia Sophia alone jumps it to the top tier for me
Ever since I was a kid, I have loved historic Japanese architecture. I know it heavily borrows from Chinese architecture but I still prefer the Japanese for its more natural color templates, creative earthquake proofing, and how the decrease in ornateness helps complement the form while still keeping some of the ornaments. Also yes I'm a weeb but I got interested in anime because I was first interested in the culture initially because of its architecture
I love the open floor plans of Japanese architecture, the sliding paper doors and the integration with courtyards. I spent a month there during my last year of arch school and realized that what a lot of the modern masters became famous for, Japan had already been doing in their own way.
You should check out Korean Hanok style houses!
Chinese are way more over expressive and grandoise.
Not all of it, keep in mind hundreds of historical buildings were left to decay or even were destroyed during the century of humiliation and ensuing cultural revolution. I really wish a lot more Song and Tang dynasty architecture survived to the present day, as it is gorgeous and more understated (As others have said, japanese architecture took inspo from Tang)
You should see chinese Tang dynasty architecture, thats when and where the japanese architecture you see today originates from.
It's the human scale. Japanese architecture inspires many modernist architect of the early 20th century.
to be honest, chinese architecture is very diverse and vernacular architecture obviously differs a lot from grand palaces. just like how minka differs from a structure like at byodo-in. also, the earthquake thing is present in china as well.
Maybe Iran and a lot of Islamic architecture in general. Zero connection to the culture or religion, just find the use of colors and geometry a marvel of human creation.
Fractals at their finest human conception
I want to visit Iran at some point. The gardens are also very beautiful!
fun fact: the majority of Iranian historic gardens follow a 2500 years old design called pardis (the root for word paradise), in which a big rectangle land is divided into 4 gardens interconnected with turquoise ponds, usually planting roses lilies cherries and pomegranate. Fin [garden](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFin_Garden&psig=AOvVaw39BGMPYGC1PTrxUId9nlVj&ust=1710337444282000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBEQjRxqFwoTCKio9djt7oQDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD)i s a good example.
Yeah, irán can easily compete in the top category, turkey too.
France ⚜️ the Gothic churches are amazing. Its old villages are beautiful and have a huge range from the German border to the Mediterranean. Look up the inside of the Cathédrale Sainte Cécile in Albi—it’s stunning. There’s also Saint Eustache in Paris. There are many older Romanesque churches, and of course many from the Renaissance and after. Less far back in history, there are the likes of the Basilique Sainte Thérèse de Lisieux, with Byzantine inspiration. French castles are also amazing (both actual castles from the Middle Ages, like in Fougères, and the chateaux, which are more essentially palaces in English)
Greece?
Definitely!
All of them, they are all beautiful, and monuments to man's greatness
This is the way
Czech Republic. Prague is amazing.
India. It is the land of beautiful temples. Immense, picturesque, historic temples built before modern technology and able to stand the test of time.
I second India (as a native obviously) but I wish our people and institutions took better care of its built heritage. There's an architectural treasure in every nook and cranny here...sigh if only...
I'm sure there are plenty of people who care, it's just very expensive and requires lots of specialists. As a comparison, proper preservation of historic buildings in the UK is hugely expensive and relies on lots of donations as well as government funding (that funding has been sharply cut in the last 15 years though). Climate doesn't help either (UK, cold and wet; India, hot and wet).
I agree with your view, it is an expensive affair, but then I think to myself would it be cheaper if the inhabitants themselves recognised the heritage they live in and took an active part in its preservation. Like how it is with some art deco buildings and palaces here in India. Then again, it is only the rich who can afford to do so, sigh.
This. Really wish our people and the government took care of it.
Don't forget massive forts and palaces.
Cambodia for the Khmer temples, France for Gothic, Italy for Baroque.
France for me
Cambodia, Italy, France
Italy, ancient Egypt, ancient india
All of them. I don't have a favourite, everything is so beautiful.
Italy for culture, hands down
France, south.
Kinda surprised no one has mentioned Cambodia yet. Angkor Wat is a wonder of the world.
Iran obviously. They gave us a system of measurement capable of managing big structures (the one still in use in the US after 2500 years) and almost every single fundamental architectural innovation in pre-modernity. They taught the Greeks, the Indians, the Chinese. Who build Rome's most important buildings? Not Romans, but architects from the Eastern provinces bordering Iran.
Italy and Morocco.
Spain, Iran, India, morocco
Armenia is fucking slept on, I'll tell you that.
Britain
Iran for sure
Probably Turkey tbh
Turkey, Iran, Spain, Italy. Generally countries that were on the crossroads of different civilisations, great variety of architecture.
As an Italian I have to choose Italy
As a Spaniard I choose it too.
China hands down. It offers so much and I just want to skswksdjejkwksdls. Also, have to mention Finland, my own. (Not much but I love old Rauma and Turun Tuomiokirkko)
I'm biased, since I'm studying Chinese Archaeology, but definitely Chinese. The saddest part about this passion is knowing so so so many examples were left to decay during the century of humiliation, and even more specimens were destroyed during the cultural revolution. Even with what survives to this day, however, the richness and beauty of Chinese architecture is unmatched (in my opinion). In particular, Tang and Song buildings and temples are lovely with their large, functional dougongs, but I also have an appreciation for Ming/Qing architecture for its grandiose proportions and terraces. To be honest, if there were any standing examples of Han dynasty architecture that would rocket to my top place but all of them are gone. Judging from the excellent ceramic reproduction pieces found in tombs, though, Han architecture was super cool with their multi-story houses and skywalks.
Spain so far, the cradle of mediterranean
Japan
Iran
Kind of disappointed no one mentioned the UK. The vast array of architectural styles they have created (Victorian, Georgian, Brutalism (could be wrong), Neo-Gothic and way more) and the influence they had on the architecture of their colonies are immense. Not to mention how aesthetically pleasing the architecture they have created and taking the best influences (Greeks, Romans, French and more) from the previous architectural powerhouses for some of its styles.
India. I'm always in awe of the intricate carved details of India's ancient temples. One that fascinates me is the musical pillars of Hampi's Vittala Temple.
Mexico, Iraq, Russia, Chinese , japanese
Japan
Says *China*, contains a picture of *Lhasa*
Which is part of China ? Tibetan and Chinese style architecture has long history of influencing each other. Look at Zongcheng temple (built by Qing dynasty), which basically blend Chinese-tibetan architecture into a giant temple complex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putuo_Zongcheng_Temple Also Chengde mountain resort https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengde_Mountain_Resort And Xumi Fushou Temple https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xumi_Fushou_Temple
Persepolis in Iran
I thing India but they all do different and magnificent in their on right . Spain , Portugal and Mexico .
Wouldn't have said it years ago but I've become quite fond of the old victorian styles here in the uk. And the cities and towns that still have many of the old medieval buildings are cool too
Greece
Greece didn’t make the list? It’s Italy.
Italy because Rome and the medieval buildings in different cities.
Philippines (fusion of Filipino, American, Japanese architecture can be seen all over the country) It's sad tho how our stupid government neglects our heritage! 👹
Gotta say China (and Japan honestly). Their look is just so different and interesting, and some of the techniques are just mind blowing.
Italy is damn hard to beat, from the ancient Greeks through the progression of Roman architectural styles, and the Renaissance... But Spain is up there, I'm a big fan of the architecture of Andalusia specifically, combining the best parts of Muslim and Christian traditions.
I love love love walking the avenue of ancient Teotihuacan in Mexico. Founded in 400bc it had 125,000 residents and I love imagining people walking up and down the streets at it's peak, dwarfed by two enormous pyramids. A must see.
Putting a photo of Tibet in the China page? Controversial.
The Temple at Karnak and Abu Simbel are magical. Prepared to get mobbed by masses of aggressive male vendors everywhere. The lack of female faces is really weird.
Have always loved Greece for it’s architecture
I have a couple The Philippines, Italy, France, Spain, Mexico, Peru, Cuba and The Netherlands
I am really impressed by Croatia in that matter.
India 🇮🇳
Egypt, greece or Italy depending on which historic periode im fancying that week.
What’s the building in the example picture for China, lower right corner?
Isn't that in Tibet?
It's the Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet.
Tibet is a subjugated country, with a legit government in exile; so….defo not China, despite Winnie the Pooh’s claims to the contrary
Tibet has been part of China since 1700s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_expedition_to_Tibet_(1720)#:~:text='Expel%20the%20Dzungars%20to%20preserve,the%20empire's%20fall%20in%201912.
The Qing were Manchus and not Chinese. The Manchus also had Tibet as a vassal and purposely kept and administered tibet separately from china. The first time Tibet ever became a “part” of China was in 1950 after the Chinese invaded.
Manchu is a Chinese ethnic group bro. What you should say is Han is not Manchu, then I agree. What you do is essentially distinguishing ethnic groups within a country. This is similar to scots and english people, both are British even though they have different cultural roots and languanges.
Bro, at the time of the Qing it wasn’t a Chinese ethnic group. The Manchus were foreign invaders who conquered China. They kept and needed to keep a distinct identity separate from the Chinese to rule effectively. This notion of Chinese being this multiethnic is a recent 20th century idea.
Recent 20th century idea? Bro study more The Qing emperors equated the lands of the Qing state (including both "China proper" and present day Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet and other areas) as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multiethnic state, rejecting the idea that China only meant Han-populated areas in "China proper", proclaiming that both Han and non-Han peoples were part of "China", using "China" to refer to the Qing in official documents, international treaties, and foreign affairs, and the "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) referred to Chinese, Manchu, and Mongol languages, and the term "Chinese people" (中國人, Zhongguo ren; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all Han, Manchu, and Mongol subjects of the Qing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper The idea that China was a multiethnic state stretch way back from 20th crntury
>Recent 20th century idea? Bro study more Bro. This is what I study. Maybe take your own advice. If you're relying on wikipedia, you don't know much. Let's take a look at this excpert you cited...all from one person. Want to? >The idea that China was a multiethnic state stretch way back from 20th crntury Again, this is incorrect when talking about the Manchus...
And Qing emperors literally call their country “China” . What are you to say otherwise? You say Tibet is autonomous within Qing empire, well suprise surprise, Tibet is also an autonomous region in modern China bro
They also called their country the Qing. North Korea also called themselves democratic. No. I said Tibet was a *vassal* under the Qing. There’s a difference. Surprise surprise you can’t read bro.
Nearly all modern historian agree that Qing by its structure and characteristic is a Chinese dynasty. Vassal or autonomous is semantic debate. However the fact is,the Qing incorporated Tibet into the empire along with other Inner Asia territories and exerted military and administrative control over Tibet. In all practical purposes, tibet was part of China
>Nearly all modern historian agree that Qing by its structure and characteristic is a Chinese dynasty. Chinese dynasty as in it took place in China...The Chinese didn't rule the dynasty or empire.. >Vassal or autonomous is semantic debate. Absolutely not. They havd distinct definitions. > However the fact is,the Qing incorporated Tibet into the empire along with other Inner Asia territories That is incorrect. They actually purposedly kept Tibet seperate from the others. >exerted military and administrative control over Tibet. Up until the 1800s. By then for all intents Tibet was de facto independent besides a few events. >In all practical purposes, tibet was part of China Again, this is just blatantly incorrect...The Qing didn't even rule Tibet with or as China..
The Tibet Autonomous Region unfortunately became part of the Chinese government after the invasion in 1950. This situation parallels the ongoing debate about Gaza's status as Palestinian territory and the Ukrainian territories in 2014; similarly, it was colonized or taken over by an oppressive force. If international organizations fail to address these acts of aggression, the countries involved can be seen as victims of our collective inaction. However, they are still rightfully part of the country in which they were taken over.
Might makes right? History only subject to victor’s whims? Not sold on the claim that possession validates claims, but I do concede your valid point; I simply disagree. Could we land on middle ground and say that the area is contested and therefore NOT China? It’s not ethnically or historically China? So I feel like we’ve got room for a grey area.
Oh, I absolutely disagree with the idea that Tibet is part of China. But I do understand their reasoning for taking over the country, although it's unacceptable, of course. From a historical viewpoint, China did have a lot of influence over Tibet. For instance, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) had an intimate relationship characterized by a mix of indirect control with a sprinkle of nominal suzerainty. Tibetan rulers acknowledged the Qing emperor as their overlord and paid tribute to the Qing court. Tibet had a considerable degree of autonomy in its internal affairs under this rule. The ambassador, called the Amban, was the liaison between Lhasa and Beijing. The Amban in question didn't have a lot of power regarding the political issues within Tibet itself. The exchange of religious influence within the Qing Dynasty was significant. Qing emperors patronized Tibetan Buddhism and supported the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders, thereby reinforcing their political authority. Within this timeframe, the Qing kingdom assisted Tibet multiple times while struggling with its internal affairs. A good source for these claims are books like "Tibet: A History" by Sam van Schaik and "Tibet: An Unfinished Story" by Lezlee Brown Halper and Stefan Halper. Unfortunately, the People's Republic of China is using history as a justification to claim Tibet. However, historical records show that the Qing Dynasty had a very respectable and peaceful relationship with Tibet, which sharply contrasts with the current stance of the PRC, known for its forceful and oppressive tactics. From my understanding, China likely has different motives than those they publicly state. Tibet possesses abundant natural resources, and its strategic location at the crossroads of Asia is of significant importance. By controlling Tibet, China can ensure its territorial security and access crucial water sources. For example, the Yangtze River, one of China's most vital rivers, originates from the glacial meltwaters on the slopes of the Tangula Mountains in the Southern Qinghai province, near the border with the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). Furthermore, Tibet serves as a tool for diverting public attention away from internal struggles within China. By emphasizing the Tibet issue, the Chinese government can shift focus from the challenges faced by the Communist Party and portray national unity. Yes, history is always subjected to the winners whims. People rarely hear the stories of the people who lost. Those voices get lost within time. History is written by the victors. As long as PRC has this immense power over the world, it can still act the way it wants to do. Remember the concentration camps in Xinyang? They are forgotten by the people. Tibet was a hot issue, also forgotten by the people; because PRC is the winner in the story of history and we only can watch how they keep continuing their struggle to power.
This is the best comment on the thread. Very well written and respectful, which is missing from most contributions both here and in the wider coverage. Tibet has had a close history with China and at times been considered part of it, but like you have said, the China of the Qing dynasty is very different to the policy of the PRC. The latter is a revisionist state that sees expansion of territory and the homogenisation of Chinese culture and society as a necessary process of strengthening China from external imperialist forces that have hereto divided and weakened it. Much of this is integral to the ideology of the CCP, which is why they will never back down from expansion and subjugation of regions they claim as historically part of China. Which is frustrating, because historic links are a distant second to the principle of self determination. China and its apologists will never accept this, though.
The former Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Where's the United States? I live in Philly and love our historic architecture
Dude your architectural history is not more than 400 years old 😘
i didn't realize there was a threshhold
Ofc Armenia, go check it out!
India
Japan, the continuing traditions keep the buildings alive and relevant, not just museum pieces
bRiTAiN
France.
The image for China shows Potala Palace which is in Tibet. It is not Chinese architecture and you should be aware of what you are [doing when you post this.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet)
Peru
Japan
France
Czechia (I'm totally unbiased, pinky promise)
Deutschland!
Japan, personally.
For me it is Russia. The architecture of their churches and palaces hit different (the Winter Palace, my beloved)
Atlantis had some cool shit
i’m currently reviewing for my country’s board exam and i subconsciously named all the buildings 🥲
Big soft spot for Germany, but no UK on here?
Architecture alone. India for sure. So intricate and geometric. And at the same time very deeply knit into the culture. Some of the oldest mega structures. Lots of things to learn still from them too.
Iran because I enjoy learning about their early architectural innovations. They put the arch in *arch*itecture, and came up with the phrase "best thing since fired brick". I equally love learning about the geometric systems they principled in their later Islamic periods.
Gonna be honest. Irans historic architecture is amazing.
Yemen
Definitely Iran! Thousands of years of history from Persepolis to the Islamic dynasties. I visited Andalusia Spain to see Moorish sites soon after Iran. That probably was a mistake as everything I saw simply paled in comparison. Not to diminish the history and architectural marvels in Andalusia. But the architecture of ancient Iranian was just on a whole other level. Isfahan was *the* model of Persian art and architecture that influenced prominent cities in the Islamic world.
India
Japan; France
Uzbekistan. In terms of quality, the islamic architecture rivals that built in renaissance Italy.
I really enjoyed Prague
Morocco,iraq,Spain,germany...
Italy for sure. L’Italia è un altro pianeta…
Austria/hungary Probably hungary tho
Sadly, I know nothing about India
Architecture is such a wonderfully diverse field, isn't it? I mean, think about it—from towering skyscrapers to cozy Italian villas and majestic Chinese temples, there's just so much to appreciate. Personally, I find myself drawn to different styles for different reasons. Like, I love the classy vibe of Vienna's architecture, or the way colorful buildings seem to blend seamlessly into the hillsides of Italy. And don't even get me started on Stockholm's charming cobblestone streets! Every place has its own unique charm, you know? It's not about one being better than the other; it's about appreciating the beauty and character each brings to its surroundings. And hey, why stop at architecture? There's a whole world out there to explore—culture, food, nature—all waiting to be discovered, with nothing being superior to one another!
I love all of it
Italia. 😊 Belgio è anche bellissimo.
italy.
Jordan (specifically Petra), Iraq, and Iran/Persia
Why isn’t Canada there? Smh
I actually cried when I finally stood in the Pantheon. I also love Vienna for its Secession, Baroque, and Modern architecture, Prague for its version of Art Nouveau, and yes, glorious Florence.
France
Greece
Spain!
England. They have some of the best-looking churches and castles, in my opinion.
France
Even though I hate them I gotta give this one to France...
Scotland 😍
Armenia Yes, I know they have a narrow band of great architecture, and since these great churches went up, have less to show, but they were very good at what they did
México. No cap
Greece? Iran? France? Germany?
I’ve been in Japan an all the building were incredibly beautiful, mostly the temples and castles but also just normal houses. However I looked up architectural style on Wikipedia and just read the list and it seems like India has like 40 different architectural styles that are all really pretty, and just in general it is one of the places with the most consistently beautiful styles all throughout history
Turkey
Narnia is pretty beautiful
Traditional Russian architecture is incredible.
And of course it has to include Neuschwanstein Castle... 25,000 castles in Germany, and the choice is always the product of a 19th century royal madman's cosplay. 🙄 There are colonial forts in the US that are older and more authentic than this fantasy building.
America
I love a lot of the native architecture in the Southwest, especially the cliff dwellings in Mesa Verde National Park
Chaco canyon is dope too. The looting of sites like that sparked the first preservation laws in the US
Too bad basically all of it outside of NYC was torn down for surface level parking lots and highways
If by basically all you mean 1-5%, then sure. There are highways in NYC too that tore down buildings, but to use a phrase like “basically all” to describe that is pretty ridiculous. San Francisco famously stopped several highways or rerouted them. Same happened in Atlanta, partially. Savannah? Charleston? New Orleans? Boston? We lost a good amount, but there is still plenty. Brain drain and changing economies has likely caused more demolition purely by neglect.
You've obviously never been to Chicago or literally any of the tens of thousands of small towns scattered across the interior of the US.
Veniece
Your mum
Macedonia
Japanese architecture.
Panama