Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by gmiller123456 on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @02:14PM
(#19675933)
>The thing that amazes me about Notre Dame, and several other structures of that era, is that it took 200 years to build.
Not really. At least not in the sense that structures are built today. The first mass was held just 19 years after construction began [1]. And many additions were added, and plans modified along the way. It's not like the original plan was 200 years of construction before it would serve any real useful purpose. There was actually construction being done at the time of the fire, but that doesn't mean it took 900 years to build.
Not really. At least not in the sense that structures are built today. The first mass was held just 19 years after construction began [1]. And many additions were added, and plans modified along the way. It's not like the original plan was 200 years of construction before it would serve any real useful purpose. There was actually construction being done at the time of the fire, but that doesn't mean it took 900 years to build.
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/as-notre-dame-...